DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

FLOOD MITIGATION FOR PUMPING STATION NO. 1

GENESEE COUNTY DRAIN COMMISSIONER, 
GENESEE COUNTY, MICHIGAN
FEMA DR-1346-MI
HMGP APPLICATION A1346.82
 

Prepared for
FEMA Region V
536 South Clark Street
Sixth Floor
Chicago, IL  60605

January 12, 2004
 
Prepared by:
Dewberry-Goodkind, Inc.
299 Webro Road
Parsippany, New Jersey 07054
89-FEMA4138.00-10082
and:
URS Group, Inc.
200 Orchard Ridge Drive, Suite 101
Gaithersburg, Maryland  20878
Contract No. EMW-2000-CO-0246, 
Task Order No. 138


TABLE OF CONTENTS
	
Section 1 Introduction	
1.1	Project Authority	
1.2	Project Location	
1.3	Purpose and Need	

Section 2 Alternative Analysis	
2.1	Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative	
2.2	Alternative 2 - Relocation of Pumping Station (Proposed Action)	
2.3	Alternative 3 - Elevation of Berm	
2.4	Alternatives Considered and Dismissed	

Section 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences	
3.1	Physical Environment	
3.1.1	Geology, Seismicity and Soils	
3.1.2	Water Resources and Water Quality	
3.1.3	Floodplain Management (Executive Order 11988)	
3.1.4	Air Quality	
3.2	Biological Environment	
3.2.1	Terrestrial and Aquatic Environment	
3.2.2	Wetlands (Executive Order 11990)	
3.2.3	Threatened and Endangered Species	
3.3	Hazardous Materials	
3.4	Socioeconomics	
3.4.1	Zoning and Land Use	
3.4.2	Visual Resources	
3.4.3	Noise	
3.4.4	Public Services and Utilities	
3.4.5	Traffic and Circulation	
3.4.6	Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898)	
3.4.7	Safety and Security	
3.5	Cultural Resources	

Section 4 Cumulative Impacts

Section 5 Public Participation	

Section 6 Mitigation Measures and Permits	

Section 7 Consultations and References	

Section 8 List of Preparers	


Appendices 
Appendix A	Figures and Photographs
Appendix B	EO 11988 and EO 11990 Eight-Step Planning Process
Appendix C	Agency Correspondence
Appendix D	Public Notice
Appendix E 	Public Comments


LIST OF ACRONYMS

AGL	Above Ground Level
ARWTP	Anthony Rangone Waste Water Treatment Plant
APE	Area of Potential Effect

BFE	Base Flood Elevation
BMPs	Best Management Practices

CEQ	Council on Environmental Quality
CERCLIS	Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System
CFR	Code of Federal Regulations
CO	Carbon Monoxide
CWA	Clean Water Act

dB	Decibel
DNL	Day-Night Average Sound Level

EA	Environmental Assessment
EIS	Environmental Impact Statement
EO	Executive Order
EPA	Environmental Protection Agency
ESA	Endangered Species Act

FBFM	Flood Boundary and Floodway Map
FEMA	Federal Emergency Management Agency
FIRM	Flood Insurance Rate Map
FONSI	Finding of No Significant Impact
FPPA	Farmland Protection Policy Act

HEC-RAS	Hydrologic Engineering Center - River Analysis System
HMGP	Hazard Mitigation Grant Program

I-69	Interstate 69
I-75	Interstate 75
IWI	Index of Watershed Indicators

MDEQ	Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
MDNR	Michigan Department of Natural Resources
mL	milliliter
msl	Mean Sea Level

NAAQS	National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NCA	Noise Control Act
NEPA	National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
NFIP	National Flood Insurance Program
NFRAP	No Further Remedial Action Planned
NHPA	National Historic Preservation Act
NO2	Nitrogen Dioxide
NPL	National Priority List
NRCS	Natural Resources Conservation Service
NREPA	Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act
NRHP	National Register of Historic Places
NWI	National Wetland Inventory

O3	Ozone
OSHA	Occupational Safety and Health Administration

Pb	Lead
PM-10	Particulate Matter With a Diameter Less than or Equal to 10 Microns
	
SHPO	State Historic Preservation Office
SO2	Sulfur Dioxide
SQG	Small Quantity Generator
SWF	Solid Waste Facility

U.S.	United States
USACE	United States Army Corps of Engineers
USDA	United States Department of Agriculture
USFWS 	United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS	United States Geological Survey
UST	Underground Storage Tank



Section 1 Introduction
1.1	PROJECT AUTHORITY
Severe storms and flooding occurred on September 10 and 11, 2000, in the State of Michigan, 
leading the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to issue a federal disaster 
declaration, DR-1346-MI, on October 17, 2000. Under this declaration, Oakland and Wayne 
Counties became eligible for Individual Assistance, and all counties within the state became 
eligible for funding through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). 

The Genesee County Drain Commissioner in Flint Township, Genesee County, Michigan, has 
applied for HMGP Section 404 funding under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 
Emergency Assistance Act. HMGP funds are provided by FEMA under this program for 
disaster-related mitigation projects. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 
1969 (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA 
[Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 1500 through 1508], and FEMA regulations 
for NEPA compliance (44 CFR Part 10), FEMA must fully consider the potential environmental 
impacts of the proposed actions and alternatives. The President's CEQ has developed regulations 
for implementing NEPA. The federal regulations set forth in 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508 require an 
evaluation of the proposed action and alternatives. The required evaluation is provided in this 
Environmental Assessment (EA). A second purpose of this EA is to determine whether the 
preparation of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or an Environmental Impact 
Statement (EIS) should be the subsequent step in fulfilling the NEPA process.

1.2	PROJECT LOCATION
The proposed project is located in the Flint Township in Genesee County, Michigan (Figure 1). 
Genesee County is located in east-central Michigan and is bordered by Saginaw County and 
Tuscola County to the north, Lapeer County to the east, Oakland and Livingston County to the 
south, and Shiawassee County to the west.

The nearest population center is the City of Flint, located to the east of the project site. The 
project site is located immediately west of the southern terminus of an unnamed access road, 
approximately 1/4 mile west of Claude Road and 500 feet south of Miller Road/State Route 21. 
The site is bordered to the east by Interstate 75 (I-75) and to south by Swartz Creek, a major 
tributary of the Flint River, and by Interstate 69 (I-69) (Figure 2).

Pumping Station Number 1 is located adjacent to the north bank of Swartz Creek. The pumping 
station is part of the Genesee County Drain Commissioner Sewer District Number 1, the largest 
single sewer service district in the county, covering 509 square miles. The sewage district 
provides service to 24 Genesee County member municipalities and 5 customers outside Genesee 
County. The entire system includes over 1,700 miles of sewers and 73 pump stations that all lead 
to the Anthony Rangone Waste Water Treatment Plant (ARWTP) in the Township of Montrose 
for treatment prior to discharge into the Flint River.

Pumping Station Number 1, the second largest pumping station in the district, handles 90 percent 
of the wastewater generated in Sewer District Number 1. Wastewater flowing into Pumping 
Station Number 1 is received from a trunk line from the City of Swartz to the west (Figure 3). 
The trunk line runs eastward from the City of Swartz along Swartz Creek until it meets a second 
trunk line running north towards Swartz Creek. The two lines combine and flow east, then north 
under Swartz Creek, to reach Pumping Station No. 1. Wastewater is then pumped generally 
northwest via a trunk line that crosses under Miller Road and I-75 and continues to the Flushing 
Park Pumping Station (Figure 3).

Pumping Station Number 1 is located on a 0.32-acre triangular parcel. The Genesee County 
Drain Commissioner owns the parcel and pumping station. The Division of Water and Waste 
Services operates and maintains Pumping Station Number 1 and is also the HMGP applicant. 
Access to the site is provided by an extension of the terminus of a one-lane paved road. A 12-
foot wide driveway extension from the road enters at the northeastern corner of the site. The 
pump station is a one-story brick building with a pitched roof measuring approximately 30 feet 
wide by 30 feet long (approximately 900 square feet). The building, or pumping station, houses 4 
pumps. A set of switchgears is located on a concrete pad, immediately east of the building. A wet 
well is located on the southeastern portion of the triangular-shaped property. Also, a 60-inch 
diameter trunk line enters the site from the south and crosses under Swartz Creek.

A 7-foot high chain link fence has been installed around the project site at approximately 30 feet 
from the pumping station building. There is a 4-foot high earthen berm around the outside 
perimeter of the fence. The top of the berm varies in width around the site, ranging from 5 to 10 
feet. The elevation of the berm varies between approximately 743.7 feet and 745.2 feet above 
mean sea level (msl) [3.25 feet and 5 feet above ground level (AGL)]. On average, the berm 
height is equal to the Base Flood Elevation (BFE), or 100-year elevation, but it is very 
susceptible to the 100-year flood because of the considerable fluctuation in height. Additionally, 
a site reconnaissance on March 7 and 8, 2002 revealed that a portion of the berm (approximately 
20 feet wide) on the northwestern corner has been removed. According to the applicant, the berm 
was removed to allow standing water from a 100-year flood event in 2001 to drain from the site 
(Crespo, pers. comm.). 

1.3	PURPOSE AND NEED
The purpose of the project is to prevent damage to the pumping station from floodwaters and 
reduce the need for financial assistance following natural disasters.

Pumping Station Number 1 currently handles steady flows of sanitary wastewater without much 
seasonal fluctuation. Wet weather flows, particularly during the months of March and April, 
however, result in heavy infiltration of stormwater through manholes. During a flood event, 
water from Swartz Creek rises over the top of the existing berm, creating standing water inside 
the berm and over the manhole, thereby exacerbating the infiltration of stormwater into the 
system. Although the pumping station is not located near the outflow into the Flint River, the 
infiltration of stormwater into the sanitary system results in the overflow of untreated or partially 
treated sewage into Swartz Creek and then into the Flint River. Representative photographs of 
the pumping station are provided in Appendix A.

On February 8, 2001, a 100-year flood event inundated the area between the berm and pumping 
station structure with 4 feet of standing water, approximately the average height of the existing 
berm. Much of the electrical equipment inside the pumping station building, including the 
variable fixed drive, was submerged under floodwater and incurred severe damage. Previous 
flood events also occurred between 1986 and 1996 with flood damage occurring in varying 
degrees.

In response to recurring flood damages to Pumping Station Number 1 and the associated human 
health risks, the implementation of specific measures to decrease the infiltration of stormwater 
during the 100-year event has been proposed. The purpose and need of this action would be to 
reduce the potential for flooding (from the 100-year event) to the pumping station and 
equipment, minimize human health risks caused by the overflow of sewage into Swartz Creek, 
and reduce the need for financial assistance for post-disaster recovery.

The CEQ has developed regulations for implementing NEPA. These federal regulations, set forth 
in Title 40, CFR Parts 1500-1508, require an evaluation of alternatives, and a discussion of the 
potential environmental impacts of a proposed federal action, as part of the EA process. The 
FEMA regulations, which establish FEMA's process for implementing NEPA, are set forth in 44 
CFR, Subpart 10. This EA 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.

Section 2 Alternative Analysis
The purpose of FEMA's HMGP is to provide funding to local communities to prevent damage to 
property and loss of life caused by natural disasters. Additionally, funded projects should meet 
the goal of reducing the need for financial assistance following natural disasters. This EA 
evaluates three alternatives to meeting the project's purpose and need: Alternative 1 - No 
Action; Alternative 2 - Relocation of the Pumping Station (Proposed Action); and Alternative 3 
- Elevation of the Berm.

2.1	ALTERNATIVE 1 - NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
Under the No Action Alternative, permanent improvements at the project site, including 
improvements to the existing berm and electrical systems, would not be conducted. Maintenance 
and repair of the existing levee would continue to be conducted by the applicant. During flood 
events, floodwaters would continue to impact the existing pumping station, electrical system, and 
sewer system. The sewer system would continue to experience infiltration of stormwater in its 
system through the manhole on the project site. 

2.2	ALTERNATIVE 2 - RELOCATION OF PUMPING STATION (PROPOSED ACTION)
The Proposed Action would relocate the existing pumping station to a site 300 feet north of the 
existing project site along the existing trunk line near Miller Road (Figure 2). This relocation 
site, which is currently vacant, is approximately 0.32 acre in size and is located outside the 100-
year and 500-year floodplains. Due to its location outside of the 100-year and 500-year 
floodplains, no berm would be included in this alternative.

To extend the force main to the relocated pumping station, a 9-foot wide, 25-foot deep trench 
would be excavated from the existing pumping station to the location of the new station (see 
Photographs 1-5). The excavation near the surface would be wider (25 feet) to comply with 
trenching safety regulations. Excavated soil would be temporarily stockpiled on-site, adjacent to 
the trench. A 60-inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe would be installed in the bottom of the 
trench, and the trench would be backfilled with the material that was excavated from the trench. 
All excess spoils (approximately 220 cubic yards) would be removed from the site and disposed 
of properly. Excavated materials would not be deposited in the 100-year floodplain. Soil erosion 
and sedimentation control such as silt fence and check dams would be installed to minimize 
erosion. After construction activities are concluded, the excavated area would be restored to as 
original condition as possible. The new pumping station would be approximately the same size 
as the old pumping station, and will require excavating into a footprint of approximately 900 
square feet. After the new pumping station is operational, the old pumping station would be 
demolished and the existing earthen berm removed.

2.3	ALTERNATIVE 3 - ELEVATION OF BERM 
Alternative 3 would include raising the existing earthen berm around the perimeter of the 
pumping station to a new height 5 feet above the base elevation of the pumping station structure 
(740.5 feet msl). Thus, the proposed height of the berm would be increased to 745.5 feet msl 
around the entire perimeter and above the BFE (744.4 feet msl) by approximately 1 foot. The 
pumping station's electrical components would also be replaced and upgraded to withstand 
future flood damage

2.4	ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND DISMISSED 
As an alternative to the existing aboveground structure and pumping station, a submersible 
pumping station could be constructed on the project site. The submersible station would be 
designed to withstand flooding and wet weather conditions, so stormwater infiltration would no 
longer occur. However, the placement of the power supply and selected electrical switches 
would need to be above ground to prevent flooding and to provide access, which would further 
add to the cost of the pumping station. This alternative would require extensive feasibility studies 
to determine the environmental constraints (e.g., soils suitability, geotechnical hazards) and final 
cost. Although a submersible pumping station would be effective, the length of time required for 
feasibility analysis, cost studies, design, and construction would be considerable. As a result, this 
alternative was determined infeasible and dismissed from further consideration.

Another alternative involves only the alteration and relocation of the existing manhole on the 
southern portion of the site to minimize infiltration of stormwater. The manhole would be 
extended above the 740.5-foot msl elevation, renovated, and re-sealed. While this approach 
would likely minimize wet weather flows in the system and possibly have a positive impact on 
the Sewage Treatment Plant, this alternative would not meet the project's purpose and need. It 
would not prevent damage caused by natural disasters and would not preclude the need for 
financial assistance following natural disasters. Therefore, this alternative was dismissed from 
further consideration.


Table 1: Impact Summary Matrix

A.  [PART A OF TABLE 1 DESCRIBES THE 3 ALTERNATIVES:	
No Action Alternative 
(Alternative 1)

FEMA funds would not be used for 
improvements at the project site, 
including improvements to the existing 
berm and electrical systems.

 Relocation of Pumping Station 
(Alternative 2 - Proposed Action)

The pump station would be relocated 
to a site outside of the 100-year and 
500-year floodplains, which is 300 
feet north of the current location, 
near Miller Road.

Elevation of Berm
 (Alternative 3)

The existing berm would be 
elevated above the BFE by a foot 
around the perimeter of the 
pumping station, and the pumping 
station's electrical components 
would be replaced and upgraded to 
withstand future flood damage.
END PART A]


B.	[PART B OF TABLE 1 IS 4 COLUMNS: 
Categories of Potential Impacts 
No Action Alternative (Alternative 1)
Relocation of Pumping Station (Alternative 2 - Proposed Action)
Elevation of Berm (Alternative 3)

Geology, Seismicity and Soils
No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) 
* No impacts to soils and prime farmland.
* The geology and seismicity of the area would not be impacted.
Relocation of Pumping Station (Alternative 2 - Proposed Action) 
* Moderate yet temporary disturbance to soils because the station would be removed from 
the current site and the new site would be disturbed; surface erosion may increase, but 
implementation of BMPs  would minimize adverse effects.
* No impacts to geology, prime farmland, or seismicity.
Elevation of Berm (Alternative 3)
* Minor topographical changes would occur, but the local geology would not be affected. 
* Minimal disturbance to soils; surface erosion may increase, but implementation of BMPs 
would minimize adverse effects.
* No impacts to prime farmland or seismicity. 

Water Resources and Water Quality
No Action Alternative (Alternative 1)
* The current threats to the water resources and water quality of the 
area would remain; future flood events would continue at the project site and could result in the 
accidental discharge of sewage effluent into Swartz Creek, which is detrimental to the water quality 
of areas downstream. 
Relocation of Pumping Station (Alternative 2 - Proposed Action)
* The potential for overflow of sewage effluent into Swartz 
Creek would be greatly reduced.
Elevation of Berm (Alternative 3)
* The potential for contaminants to be discharged from the pump station into Swartz 
Creek would be reduced.

Floodplain Management
No Action Alternative (Alternative 1)
* No impacts to the floodplain would be anticipated.
Relocation of Pumping Station (Alternative 2 - Proposed Action)
* The volume of the floodplain would increase slightly after the existing pumping station and 
berm are removed, potentially lowering flood elevations and velocities.
Elevation of Berm (Alternative 3)
* Localized flood elevations would increase slightly but no impacts to upstream or 
downstream 100-year flood levels are anticipated.
* The pumping station would be protected from the 100-year flood.

Air Quality
No Action Alternative (Alternative 1)
* No impacts to air quality.
Relocation of Pumping Station (Alternative 2 - Proposed Action)
* Fugitive dust emissions due to construction may have a temporary impact on local air quality.
* Construction equipment has the potential to temporarily increase criteria air pollutants of concern.
Elevation of Berm (Alternative 3)
* Fugitive dust emissions due to construction may have a temporary impact on local air quality.
* Construction equipment has the potential to temporarily increase criteria air pollutants of concern.

Terrestrial and Aquatic Environment
No Action Alternative (Alternative 1)
*  No impacts to the terrestrial environment are anticipated.
Relocation of Pumping Station (Alternative 2 - Proposed Action)
* Removal of herbaceous vegetative cover in the 900 square-foot footprint of the pump station and disturbance of 
the limited herbaceous vegetation in the vicinity of the site.
* Minimal disturbance to the vegetation adjacent to the fence during the removal of the pumping station.
* No trees would be impacted.
* Temporary disturbance to wildlife that utilize the current site and relocation site.
* The potential for harmful contaminants to be discharged from the pump station into nearby aquatic environments 
would be reduced.
Elevation of Berm (Alternative 3)
* Minimal disturbance to the vegetation adjacent to the fence surrounding the pumping station.
* There would be no disturbance to bottomland or floodplain areas adjacent to the site or areas near the edge 
of Swartz Creek.
* Temporary disturbance to wildlife that utilize the project site.
* The potential for harmful contaminants to be discharged from the pump station into nearby aquatic environments 
would be reduced.

Wetlands
No Action Alternative (Alternative 1)
* Would not impact wetlands or jurisdictional waters in the project area.
Relocation of Pumping Station (Alternative 2 - Proposed Action)
* No impacts are anticipated to wetlands.
* Relocation site would not be located within identified wetland areas, and wetland areas would be avoided during the removal of 
the pumping station from its current site.
Elevation of Berm (Alternative 3)
* The potential for the release of effluent from the station into adjacent wetlands would be reduced.
* Wetland areas would be avoided during construction.

Threatened and Endangered Species
No Action Alternative (Alternative 1)
* No impacts to proposed or listed threatened and endangered species would be expected.
Relocation of Pumping Station (Alternative 2 - Proposed Action)
* No impacts to proposed or listed threatened and endangered species would be expected.
Elevation of Berm (Alternative 3)
* No impacts to proposed or listed threatened and endangered species would be expected.

Hazardous Materials and Wastes
No Action Alternative (Alternative 1)
* No impacts to listed hazardous materials or wastes are anticipated.
Relocation of Pumping Station (Alternative 2 - Proposed Action)
* Based on results from an environmental database search, no impacts to known hazardous materials or wastes are 
anticipated.
Elevation of Berm (Alternative 3)
* Based on results from an environmental database search, no impacts to known hazardous materials or wastes 
are anticipated

Zoning and Land Use
No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) 
* No impacts to land use and zoning would occur.
Relocation of Pumping Station (Alternative 2 - Proposed Action)
* No impacts to land use and zoning would occur.
Elevation of Berm (Alternative 3)
* No impacts to land use and zoning would occur.

Visual Resources
No Action Alternative (Alternative 1)
* No impacts would occur to existing visual resources.
Relocation of Pumping Station (Alternative 2 - Proposed Action)
* Careful siting and screening would ensure minimal impacts to visual resources.
Elevation of Berm (Alternative 3)
* No impacts would occur to existing visual resources.

Noise
No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) 
* No construction would occur and no additional noise would be generated.
Relocation of Pumping Station (Alternative 2 - Proposed Action)
* Temporary increase in the ambient noise levels due to equipment use.
* The surrounding area is sparsely populated and would not incur noise impacts.
Elevation of Berm (Alternative 3)
* Temporary increase in the ambient noise levels due to equipment use.
* The surrounding area is sparsely populated and would not incur noise impacts.

Public Services and Utilities
No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) 
* Township emergency response and repair services would continue to be needed as a result of 100-year 
flooding of the pumping station.
Relocation of Pumping Station (Alternative 2 - Proposed Action)
* No adverse impacts to public services and utilities are anticipated.
Elevation of Berm (Alternative 3)
* No adverse impacts to public services and utilities are anticipated.

Traffic and Circulation
No Action Alternative (Alternative 1)
* No impacts to traffic or circulation.
Relocation of Pumping Station (Alternative 2 - Proposed Action)
* No impacts to traffic or circulation.
Elevation of Berm (Alternative 3)
* No impacts to traffic or circulation.

Environmental Justice
No Action Alternative (Alternative 1)
* Executive Order 12898 is not applicable to this alternative.
Relocation of Pumping Station (Alternative 2 - Proposed Action)
* Minority or low-income populations are not concentrated in project area, and therefore 
would not be impacted by project activities.
Elevation of Berm (Alternative 3)
* Minority or low-income populations are not concentrated in project area, and therefore would not be 
impacted by project activities.

Safety and Security
No Action Alternative (Alternative 1)
* There would be no potential risks to the personal safety of those who would otherwise be performing 
project-related activities
* Potential health and safety risks to residents in the event of sewage overflow from the pumping station 
during 100-year flood events would remain.
Relocation of Pumping Station (Alternative 2 - Proposed Action)
* All project activities would be performed using qualified personnel and conducted in 
accordance with the standards specified in OSHA  regulations.
* Overall, the project activities would decrease risks to human health and safety associated with 
100-year flood events. 
Elevation of Berm (Alternative 3)
* All project activities would be performed using qualified personnel and conducted in accordance with the standards 
specified in OSHA regulations.
* Overall, the project activities would decrease risks to human health and safety associated with 100-year flood events.

Cultural Resources
No Action Alternative (Alternative 1)
* No changes or impacts to the existing historical sites of architectural or archaeological significance, or Tribal Religious 
Sites are anticipated to occur.
Relocation of Pumping Station (Alternative 2 - Proposed Action)
* No impacts to archeological or historic resources are anticipated.
* Based on consultation with local Native American tribes, impacts to Indian Religious Sites are not anticipated to occur.
Elevation of Berm (Alternative 3)
* No impacts to archeological or historic resources are anticipated.
* Based on consultation with local Native American tribes, impacts to Indian Religious Sites are not anticipated to occur.

END TABLE 1]


Section 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
3.1	PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
3.1.1	Geology, Seismicity and Soils
The project area lies within the Michigan Basin, a large regional structure composed of a variety 
of strictly sedimentary rocks that were deposited in the Paleozoic Era, Cambrian through 
Pennsylvanian Periods. Bedrock in Genesee County is the Saginaw Formation, Pottsville Series 
and consists of sandstone, siltstone, shale, and limestone (Farrand and Bell, 1982; MDEQ, 2002).
Formerly inundated by the glacial Great Lakes during the Pleistocene Epoch, much of the flat, 
low-lying Genesee County is covered in Quaternary sediments of gray to dark reddish brown 
lacustrine clay and silt of up to 10 meters in thickness. Also common are 10- to 30-meter thick 
terminal moraines of medium textured till which mark the standstills of the ice sheet margin 
during the Wisconsian glacial period. The till mainly consists of gray to reddish brown unsorted 
glacial debris including loam and silt loam with varying amounts of cobbles and boulders 
(Farrand and Bell, 1982).

Genesee County lies in an area of low seismic activity. According to the United States 
Geological Survey (USGS) National Earthquake Information Center, no significant (Modified 
Mercalli Intensity VII or more) earthquakes have occurred in Michigan in the last 50 years. The 
last significant earthquake was a magnitude 4.4 in 1947 (USGS, 2002a). The National Seismic 
Hazard Mapping Project shows that Genesee County has a low probability of seismic activity 
(USGS, 2002b).

According to the Genesee County Soil Survey, Ceresco fine sandy loam (Cn) is the dominant 
soil on the project site (Figure 4). Ceresco fine sandy loam (Cn) is the most extensive soil found 
within the stream corridor floodplain of the county (USDA, 1993). This soil is a poorly drained 
soil common in bottomlands or floodplains of the region. This soil is sandy loam to fine sandy 
loam deposited by water. This soil is considered a prime farmland soil when it is adequately 
drained, not flooded more than occasionally, and protected from flooding during the growing 
season. 

Swartz Creek, flowing directly adjacent to the south side of the project area, is one of the main 
tributaries to the Flint River. Soils within this area appear to have been altered by the placement 
of fill to accommodate development of business enterprises along Miller Road in Flint. As such, 
the soils on the subject property are modified from the mapped soil type and therefore, are not 
considered to be a prime farmland soil. The areas surrounding Pumping Station Number 1 are 
either inundated or poorly drained, except in areas where backfilled materials have been placed. 
Conover loam with 2 to 6 percent slopes (CvB) is located in the vicinity of the relocation site 
(Alternative 2) and is a poorly drained soil that consists of high lime content (USDA, 1993). 
Without drainage, this soil remains wet in the spring and after heavy rainfall. This soil is 
considered a prime farmland soil if it is adequately drained. 

The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) was enacted in 1981 (P.L. 98-98) to minimize the 
unnecessary conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses as a result of federal actions. 
Programs administered by federal agencies must be compatible with state and local farmland 
protection policies and programs. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is 
responsible for protecting significant agricultural lands from irreversible conversions that result 
in the loss of an essential food or environmental resource.

Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative
No construction would occur under the No Action Alternative. Therefore, there would be no 
impact on the geology, seismicity, or soils of the project site.

Alternative 2 - Relocation of Pumping Station (Proposed Action)
Impacts to geology, seismicity, or soils are not anticipated under the Proposed Action. The 
Proposed Action would disturb approximately 900 square feet of (previously disturbed) soil at 
the existing station location, approximately 900 square feet of soil at the relocation site, and 
approximately 7,500 square feet of soil along the force main extension route. Construction would 
increase the potential for soil loss due to erosion; however, stormwater BMPs such as placing silt 
fences and hay bales, and seeding and mulching exposed soils shortly after disturbance, would be 
used to minimize the impact. If project activities include the stockpiling of soil or fill on-site, the 
project applicant would cover these soils to help prevent fugitive dust and soil erosion. Any 
excess excavated material would be taken off-site and disposed of at a facility permitted for that 
type of activity. 

Because soils in the project area have been modified from those mapped by the USDA, are 
poorly drained, and are not currently farmed, this alternative would be exempt from the FPPA. 

Alternative 3 - Elevation of Berm 
Minor topographical changes would occur as a result of raising the berm, but the local geology 
would not be affected. Replacing the electrical system would not affect the topography or the 
geology of the local area. Construction would increase the potential for soil loss due to erosion, 
however, stormwater BMPs, such as placing silt fences and hay bales, and seeding and mulching 
exposed soils shortly after disturbance, would be used to minimize the impact. Stockpiling in a 
floodplain is not permitted, so stockpiling of soil or fill on-site would have to be avoided under 
Alternative 3. Due to the low seismic hazard, there are no anticipated seismic-related impacts. 
Consequently, Alternative 3 is not anticipated to result in impacts to geological or seismological 
conditions and is expected to have a minimal impact on soil conditions. 

Because soils in the project area have been modified from those mapped by the United States 
Department of Agriculture (USDA), are poorly drained, and are not currently farmed, this 
alternative would be exempt from the FPPA. 

3.1.2	Water Resources and Water Quality
The project area is located within the Flint Watershed, one of three watersheds in Genesee 
County, Michigan. The watershed is approximately 72 miles across, and it covers portions of 
three counties, approximately 10,500 acres, and over 1,500 total river miles (USGS, 2002c and 
EPA, 2002a). Pumping Station Number 1 lies near the center of the Swartz Creek watershed. 
Swartz Creek is a tributary to the Flint River and is one of 10 rivers in the Flint Watershed, 
which has a drainage area of 115 square miles and ultimately discharges to Lake Huron (USGS, 
2002c). Surface water is the major source of potable and irrigation water in the Flint area (USGS, 
2002c and EPA, 2002a).

Groundwater wells in the area draw from sandstone aquifers. The Pennsylvanian Aquifers and 
the Mississippian Aquifer of Michigan are the principal aquifers for the region (USGS, 2002c).
The EPA's Index of Watershed Indicators (IWI) is a program that compiles information on the 
health of aquatic resources in the United States. The IWI looks at a variety of indicators that 
point to whether rivers, lakes, streams, wetlands, and coastal areas are well or ailing and whether 
activities on the surrounding lands that affect these waters are placing them at risk. The IWI has 
classified the Flint Watershed with a score of 5, which means the Flint Watershed has "more 
serious water quality problems" (EPA, 2002a). This classification signifies that the watershed 
has aquatic conditions well below state water quality goals and has serious problems as shown 
by other indicators.

Regular flooding of the pumping station results in sewage discharges into Swartz Creek and the 
Flint River Basin. The Genesee County Health Department conducts frequent E. coli bacteria 
level analysis of Swartz Creek just upstream of Interstate 75 and Miller Road. The most recent 
analytical results (February 15, 2002) were reported as 126 units, which is below the state total 
body contact limit of 300 units of E. coli per 100 milliliters (mL) (Genesee County Health 
Department, 2002). 

In a letter dated October 15, 2001, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) 
stated that the project would not require a permit under Part 301, Inland Lakes and Streams, of 
the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA), as amended.

Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the current threats to the water resources and water quality of 
the area would remain. Future flood events would continue at the project site and could be 
detrimental to the water quality of areas downstream. This alternative would continue to result in 
the discharge of sewage effluent into Swartz Creek during high water events. 

Alternative 2 - Relocation of Pumping Station (Proposed Action)
The relocation of the pumping station out of the 100-year floodplain would reduce flooding 
events and infiltration of floodwaters into the station, thereby reducing the overflow of sewage 
effluent into Swartz Creek. This would be a long-term beneficial effect to the water quality of 
Swartz Creek and other downstream bodies of water. 

Best management practices would be implemented during construction to prevent soil erosion 
and degradation of water quality in Swartz Creek. 

Alternative 3 - Elevation of Berm 
This alternative would reduce the potential for future discharge of contaminants from Pumping 
Station Number 1 resulting from the 100-year event. The elevated berm would prevent 
infiltration of floodwaters into Pumping Station Number 1 and protect against discharge of 
sewage effluent from the pumping station into Swartz Creek. This would be a long-term 
beneficial effect to the water quality of Swartz Creek and other downstream bodies of water. 
Best management practices would be implemented during construction to prevent soil erosion 
and degradation of water quality in Swartz Creek.

3.1.3	Floodplain Management (Executive Order 11988)
Executive Order (EO) 11988 directs federal agencies to take actions to avoid and minimize any 
modifications to floodplains. FEMA's Eight-Step Planning Process was conducted within this 
EA process and was documented as required by FEMA regulations (FEMA, 1996). The Eight-
Step Process is included as Appendix B. In addition, 44 CFR Part 9.6 prohibits FEMA from 
taking or approving any action within a floodplain unless no practical alternatives can be 
identified or if the proposed action clearly outweighs the requirement of EO 11988.

Floodplains refer to the 100-year floodplains as set by FEMA and are shown on Flood Insurance 
Rate Maps (FIRMs) for all communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program 
(NFIP). The 100-year floodplain designates the area inundated during a storm having a one-
percent chance of occurring in any given year. FEMA also identifies the 500-year floodplain. 
The 500-year floodplain designates the area inundated during a storm having a 0.2 percent 
chance of occurring in any given year.

Flint Township participates in the NFIP, and both project areas are located on FIRM Community 
Panel Number 2603950010B, effective November 1, 1979 (Figure 5). According to the FIRM 
and the Flood Boundary and Floodway Map (FBFM) Community Panel Number 2603950010 
(Figure 6), the relocation site (proposed under Alternative 2) is located outside of the 100-year 
and 500-year floodplains, but the pumping station is currently located within the 100-year 
floodplain and floodway of Swartz Creek on an island of high ground..

On average, the berm height is equal to the BFE, but it is very susceptible to the 100-year flood 
because the height deviates from being approximately 0.7 foot below the BFE to 0.8 foot above 
it. Additionally, a site reconnaissance on March 7 and 8, 2002 revealed that a portion of the berm 
(approximately 20 feet wide) on the northwestern corner has been removed. According to the 
applicant, the berm was removed to allow standing water from a 100-year flood event in 2001 to 
drain from the site (Crespo, pers. comm.).

Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative would have no effect on the floodplain, as no construction would 
occur. Pumping Station Number 1 would continue to flood during flood events. 

Alternative 2 - Relocation of Pumping Station (Proposed Action)
In a letter dated November 4, 2003, MDEQ indicated that removing the pumping station from 
the floodplain would not require a permit under Part 31 of the NREPA. However, it was also 
noted that the berm around the existing pumping station was constructed in the floodplain 
without a permit under Part 31. MDEQ further recommends that the existing pumping station 
and berm be removed from the floodplain and the ground restored. 

The removal of the pumping station from the floodplain would have the beneficial effect of 
removing the facility at risk from a hazardous location. Removing the station from the floodplain 
would also slightly increase the volume of the floodplain, potentially decreasing flood elevations 
and velocities. Removing the station and the existing earthen berm would have a greater 
beneficial effect than removing the pumping station alone. 

No excess excavated material would be disposed of in a floodplain.

Alternative 3 - Elevation of Berm 
Alternative 3 would involve raising the top of the berm to an elevation about 1 foot above the 
BFE around the perimeter of the pumping station. A hydrologic and hydraulic analysis of 
Alternative 3 concluded that the new berm height would protect the pumping station from the 
100-year event, while only causing minimal localized flood elevation increases in the vicinity of 
the pump station. There would be no adverse impact to the floodway or to flood elevations 
upstream or downstream of the pumping station.

According to a MDEQ consultation letter dated October 15, 2001, a permit would be required 
under the state's Floodplain Regulatory Authority found in Part 31, Water Resources, Protection, 
of the NREPA. In subsequent correspondence with MDEQ, it was noted that the existing berm 
was originally constructed without a permit under Part 31. In addition to a hydrologic and 
hydraulic analysis of this alternative, a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) would be required from 
FEMA as a result of altering the floodway. 

3.1.4	Air Quality
EPA regulates 6 criteria pollutants that could cause adverse health effects. National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been set for sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter with a 
diameter less than or equal to 10 microns (PM-10), ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon 
monoxide (CO), and lead (Pb). NAAQS are typically established for a variety of averaging 
times, ranging from one hour to one year.

Michigan is in attainment for five of the six criteria pollutants mandated by the EPA. The State 
of Michigan has been in attainment for CO since 1999, Pb and NO2 since 1978, PM-10 since 
1996, and SO2 since 1982. Several counties are in non-attainment status for ozone, including 
Genesee County.

To monitor the criteria pollutants, MDEQ maintains a network of air quality monitoring stations 
to measure background concentrations of the 6 criteria pollutants. The monitoring station closest 
to the project site is located in an urban area of the City of Flint, 15 miles to the northeast of the 
site, at Whaley Park (420 E. Boulevard Drive). The Whaley Park monitoring station last 
exceeded the NAAQS for ozone in 1998 (EPA, 2002b).

Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative
The existing pumping station does not generate pollutants that significantly contribute to the 
degradation of the quality of air. No impacts to air quality from criteria or other pollutants are 
anticipated under the No Action Alternative.

Alternative 2 - Relocation of Pumping Station (Proposed Action)
The Proposed Action would not adversely affect air quality at or near the project site. The 
pumping station does not generate pollutants that significantly contribute to the degradation of 
the quality of air. However, temporary impacts from construction activities may result from dust 
and diesel fuel emissions from bulldozers and other heavy equipment, and may temporarily 
increase pollutant levels. Dust emissions can vary greatly from day to day depending on the level 
of activity. To reduce temporary impacts to air quality, the applicant would be required to water 
down construction areas when necessary. To reduce the emission of criteria pollutants, fuel-
burning equipment operation would be kept to a minimum.

Alternative 3 - Elevation of Berm 
Impacts under Alternative 3 would be similar to those described for Alternative 2.
3.2	BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT
3.2.1	Terrestrial and Aquatic Environment
American elm (Ulmus americana), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), hickory (Carya sp.), 
quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides), locust (Gleditsia sp.), willow (Salix sp.), and cottonwood 
(Populus deltoides) are the dominant tree species within the vicinity of the existing pumping 
station. Honeysuckle (Lonicera sp.), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), and grape (Vitis sp.) are 
the main shrub or vine species noted within the project area. Goldenrod (Solidago spp.), teasel 
(Dipsacus sylvestris), bramble (Rubus sp.), and knotweed (Polyganum sp.) are the main 
herbaceous plant species within the project area. This vegetation primarily exists along Swartz 
Creek and the embankment between the creek and the pumping station. The relocation site is 
vegetated with the herbaceous species listed above and contains no trees.

Swartz Creek is home to several fish species including: panfish (Lepomis sp.), bass (Micropterus 
spp.), carp (Cyprinus carpio), and walleye (Stizostedion vitreum). Wildlife is abundant along the 
creek. 

Even in this predominantly urban setting, evidence of beaver (Castor canadensis) was noted 
upstream and downstream of the project site during a site visit on March 7 and 8, 2002. Evidence 
of woodchuck (Marmota monax), white-tail deer (Odocoileus virginianus), rabbit (Sylvilagus 
floridanus), and raccoon (Procyon lotor) was also noted during the site visit. Muskrat (Ondatra 
zibethica), fox (Vulpes vulpes), and skunk (Mephitis mephitis) are also likely to inhabit the 
project vicinity.

Bird species in the project area include: downy woodpeckers (Dendrocopos pubescens), hairy 
woodpeckers (Dendrocopos villosus), and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura). Other bird 
species prevalent in this area include: great blue heron (Ardea herodias), ducks, kingfisher 
(Megaceryle alcyon), geese, and wood ducks (Aix sponsa). Shorebirds, cormorants, hawks, and 
owls are likely to be seen on occasion. 

Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative would not adversely impact the terrestrial or aquatic environment 
within the vicinity of the existing pump station, since there would be no disturbance. If this 
alternative is selected, protective measures against nuisance species, such as woodchuck, should 
be implemented to avoid damage to the existing earthen berm. Vegetation, especially woody 
vegetation, should be removed from the pumping station berm to retain the berm's structural 
integrity.

Alternative 2 - Relocation of Pumping Station (Proposed Action)
During relocation, this alternative would result in minimal disturbance of vegetation adjacent to 
the fence surrounding the pumping station at its current location. It would also require the 
removal of herbaceous vegetative cover in the 900-square-foot footprint of the pump station and 
disturbance of the limited herbaceous vegetation in the vicinity of the relocation site, but would 
disturb no trees. 

During construction, this alternative would temporarily disturb wildlife species that utilize the 
existing project site and the relocation site. 

By reducing the severity of flood events and the overflow of sewage effluent into Swartz Creek, 
potential impacts to the aquatic environment would be reduced.

Alternative 3 - Elevation of Berm 
This alternative would result in minimal disturbance of vegetation adjacent to the fence 
surrounding the pumping station. No disturbance to bottomland floodplain areas or wooded areas 
adjacent to the pumping station, or areas near the edge of Swartz Creek is anticipated. To 
minimize impacts to trees, the applicant would employ temporary fences around the tree 
driplines to prevent the encroachment of personnel and equipment on root systems. Vegetation, 
especially woody vegetation, should be removed from the pumping station berm to retain the 
berm's structural integrity.

During construction, this alternative would temporarily disturb wildlife species that utilize the 
project site. Protective measures to deter burrowing mammals, such as woodchuck, should be 
considered to reduce the potential for damage to the berm. Such measures include using stone 
materials, riprap, or a chain link fence with a foundation at least 1 foot below ground level.
By preventing infiltration of floodwaters into the pumping station and protecting against sewage 
discharge into Swartz Creek, potential impacts to the aquatic environment would be reduced.

3.2.2	Wetlands (Executive Order 11990)
The term wetland refers to areas that are inundated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and 
duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of 
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include 
swamps, marshes, bogs, intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), 
mudflats, sloughs, and similar areas.

Under EO 11990, federal agencies are required to minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation 
of wetlands and preserve and enhance their natural and beneficial values. If a federal action has 
the potential to impact jurisdictional waters of the U.S. as defined by Section 404 of the Federal 
Clean Water Act (CWA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) would be contacted for 
appropriate permitting requirements. Section 404 of the CWA authorizes the USACE to issue 
permits, after notice and opportunity for public hearings, for the discharge of dredged or fill 
material into waters of the U.S. at specified disposal sites. FEMA applies the Eight-Step 
Planning Process, required by 44 CFR Part 9, to meet the requirements of EO 11990.

Prior to conducting a site characterization, the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map was 
reviewed for a preliminary identification of wetlands within the vicinity of the site. Based on this 
review, there are scrub-shrub, emergent, and forested wetland areas near the proposed project 
site and scrub-shrub wetlands on the border of the relocation site (Figure 7). A formal delineation 
of wetlands and waters of the U.S. in the potential areas of impact was not conducted.
During a site characterization on March 7 and 8, 2002, scrub-shrub and forested wetland areas 
were observed on the project site, but were confined to the bottomlands, floodplain zone, and the 
Swartz Creek stream corridor, and were not in the immediate vicinity of the pumping station. 
The wetlands were inundated with several inches of standing water. Due to the poor drainage of 
the soils and the limited stream corridor floodplain areas, these forested areas probably remain 
inundated for long periods of time. Natural drainage is via a series of ephemeral and/or 
intermittent channels into the forested areas, particularly to the west of the project site. 
No wetlands were observed during the site visit on the relocation site. The closest wetlands were 
down-gradient of the site in the Swartz Creek stream corridor. 

Michigan has received authorization from the federal government to administer Section 404 of 
the Clean Water Act in most areas of the state. The MDEQ has reviewed the project area and 
stated in a letter dated October 15, 2001 that the project would be reviewed under Part 303, 
Wetlands Protection, of the NREPA. 

Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative
This alternative would have no effect on wetlands adjacent to the project site because no 
construction would occur. The pumping station would continue to be vulnerable to the 100-year 
event, and the adjacent wetlands would continue to be periodically inundated with sewage 
overflow.

Alternative 2 - Relocation of Pumping Station (Proposed Action)
The relocation site would not be located within identified wetland areas, and wetland areas 
would be avoided during the removal of the pumping station from its current site. The area to be 
excavated during the installation of the new force main consists of previously disturbed soils and 
is regularly groomed. No wetlands were identified along this route during site visits conducted in 
March 2002. If required by MDEQ during permitting, a site-specific delineation would be 
conducted to evaluate nearby wetland conditions and to determine and mark boundaries. No 
excess excavated material would be disposed of in a wetland. As a result, no impacts to these 
resources are anticipated. 

FEMA applies the Eight-Step Planning Process, as required by regulation, to meet the 
requirements of EO 11990. This step-by-step analysis is included in Appendix B of this 
document. 

Alternative 3 - Elevation of Berm 
Alternative 3 would reduce the potential for future releases of effluent from the site to adjacent 
areas, including the wetlands. A site-specific delineation may be required to evaluate wetland 
conditions and to determine and mark boundaries. Wetland areas would be avoided during the 
construction of the berm and the electrical upgrades. No wetlands were observed in the 
surrounding area within or immediately surrounding the pumping station. FEMA applies the 
Eight-Step Planning Process, as required by regulation, to meet the requirements of EO 11990. 
This step-by-step analysis is included in Appendix B of this document. 

3.2.3	Threatened and Endangered Species
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 requires federal agencies to determine the effects of 
their actions on threatened and endangered species of fish, wildlife, and plants, and their habitats, 
and to take steps to conserve and protect these species.
FEMA requested the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) to review records for 
known occurrences of threatened, endangered, or otherwise significant plant and animal species, 
natural plant communities, and other natural features. In a letter dated October 7, 2003, the 
MDNR responded there are no known occurrences of federal- or state-listed threatened, 
endangered, or otherwise significant species, natural plant communities, or natural features at the 
project site (Appendix C). 

The U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was also requested to 
review records for known occurrences of threatened and endangered species in the project area. 
In their consultation letter dated October 3, 2003, they also indicated that there are no 
endangered, threatened, proposed, or candidate species, or critical habitat occurring within the 
project area (Appendix C).

Based on these consultations, no further consideration is required for the No Action Alternative, 
Alternative 2 (Proposed Action), or Alternative 3 regarding impacts to threatened or endangered 
species.

3.3	HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
The scope of work conducted in the preparation of this EA included a database search, inquiries 
with state and local agencies, and a site reconnaissance.

To determine the presence and approximate location of known hazardous materials in the 
vicinity of the proposed project, VISTA, an independent information service, conducted an 
environmental database search. The database search queries multiple federal, state, and local 
hazardous materials and underground storage tank (UST) databases.

The VISTA report, dated March 8, 2002, identified five facilities located within a one-quarter 
mile radius of the site with environmental classifications. 

Claude Road Landfill, on Claude Road, is listed on the Solid Waste Facility (SWF) and 
Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation Liability Information System/No 
Further Remedial Action Planned (CERCLIS/NFRAP) databases. The landfill is reportedly 
located on the north, east and south of Claude Avenue, and is adjacent to the north and east 
boundaries of the pumping station. A preliminary assessment was conducted by the MDEQ on 
June 27, 1986, and was completed on February 7, 1990. Based on that investigation no additional 
remedial actions are planned. This site is not listed on the Hazardous Waste docket or on the 
National Priority List (NPL). A site reconnaissance on March 7 and 8, 2002 revealed no issues of 
particular concern. However, it should be noted that at the time of the site visit, the property was 
covered with approximately 3 to 4 inches of snow.

Dawn Donuts, G-3265 Miller Road, is reportedly located approximately 0.07 mile north of the 
pumping station. However, the field reconnaissance could not identify the exact location of this 
establishment. As a result, it believed that this facility is no longer in operation. This facility is 
listed as a Small Quantity Generator (SQG) with no violations listed. Because no violations are 
listed, this site poses a minimal risk to all of the project alternatives.

Red Roof Inn, G-3219 Miller Road, is reportedly located 0.12 mile north of the pumping station 
and is listed as a one-time SQG. No violations were listed. Based on the fact that no violations 
are listed, this site poses a minimal risk to all of the project alternatives.

Midas Muffler, G-3211 Miller Road, is located 0.12 mile north of the pumping station and is 
listed as a SQG with no violations listed. Based on the fact that no violations are listed, this site 
poses a minimal risk to all of the project alternatives.

Point Amoco, G-3356 Miller Road, is a gas station reportedly located 0.14 mile west of the 
pumping station and is listed on the UST database. This facility did not appear on the leaking 
underground storage tank (LUST) database or other databases of concern; therefore, the site does 
not represent a significant concern for any of the project alternatives. Access into the pumping 
station was not obtained at the time of the site reconnaissance. However, subsequent discussions 
with the applicant suggest that there are no asbestos-containing materials (piping insulation, 
roofing materials, wallboard, etc.) in the pumping station building (Davidek, pers. comm.).

Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative
The existing use would continue under this alternative. This alternative poses no risk or impacts 
to the surrounding sites. In addition, the identified hazardous waste screening sites pose no threat 
to the existing pump station.

Alternative 2 - Relocation of Pumping Station (Proposed Action)
The relocation would require soil excavation. Based on a review of the information presented in 
the VISTA report, soil excavation associated with Alternative 2 is not anticipated to impact any 
hazardous materials. 

Although subsurface hazardous materials are not anticipated to be present in the project area, 
construction activities could expose or otherwise affect subsurface hazardous wastes or 
materials. Any hazardous materials discovered, generated, or used during implementation of the 
proposed project would be disposed of and handled by the county in accordance with applicable 
local, state, and federal regulations.

Alternative 3 - Elevation of Berm 
Alternative 3 would involve placing clean fill (obtained off-site) onto the existing berm. No 
material would be excavated from the project site or adjacent properties. The replacement of 
variable drive parts is not anticipated to involve hazardous materials because there are no 
asbestos-containing materials on site. As such, Alternative 3 is not anticipated to impact any 
hazardous materials. 

Although subsurface hazardous materials are not anticipated to be present in the project area, 
construction activities could expose or otherwise affect subsurface hazardous wastes or 
materials. Any hazardous materials discovered, generated, or used during implementation of the 
proposed project would be disposed of and handled by the county in accordance with applicable 
local, state, and federal regulations.

3.4	SOCIOECONOMICS
3.4.1	Zoning and Land Use
The project site is located near Flint Township's eastern border with the City of Flint, in Genesee 
County. Flint Township has both a Master Plan and a Zoning Ordinance.

The project site and the relocation site are located within the C-2 General Business District (Flint 
Township, 2002). The C-2 district extends north of the project site across Miller Road to Lennon 
Road, to the west and to the south across Swartz Creek to I-69. Permitted uses within the C-2 
district include: essential public services; public service buildings; retail food establishments, 
including convenience stores; retail businesses; personal services establishments; newspaper 
offices; churches; restaurants; private clubs; funeral homes and other uses. The sanitary sewer 
pumping station is the only existing use on the project site. 

To the immediate south of the site are Swartz Creek, floodplain, and wetland areas. Further to 
the south are I-75 and Bishop Airport. The area to the immediate east and northeast of the project 
site is zoned as a C-3 Highway Service District, which permits more extensive business and 
entertainment activities than the C-2 General Business district. Immediately east of the site is a 
one-lane paved road with no curb or shoulders, and slightly further east is a vacant parcel that is 
reported to be a former landfill (discussed in Section 3.3: Hazardous Materials). Also to the east 
and northeast are hotels, restaurants, retail, and commercial establishments. A vacant parcel with 
debris consisting of an abandoned truck, shed, and other wood debris, is located to the immediate 
north of the site. Further to the north is a U-Haul truck rental establishment with frontage on 
Miller Road, with the loading and parking areas that appear to be intermingled with the pumping 
station right-of-way. The areas further to the north along Miller Road and beyond are dominated 
by highway commercial uses. To the west and northwest are forested wetland areas consisting of 
mixed broad-leaved deciduous hardwoods. Several inches of water and several dozen used tires 
were observed within the wetland areas northwest of the site during the field reconnaissance on 
March 7 and 8, 2002.

Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative would have no impact upon the existing zoning designation and 
current land uses in the area, as no changes would occur. 

Alternative 2 - Relocation of Pumping Station (Proposed Action)
Under the Proposed Action, the relocation of the pumping station from its current location to a 
location further north along the access road would keep the pump station within the C-2 zoning 
district, where it is considered a principal permitted use. The relocation would be compatible 
with adjacent land uses.

Alternative 3 - Elevation of Berm
Alternative 3 would be permitted as a principal permitted use under the existing C-2 zoning 
district and would require no amendments or variances from existing lot and block regulations. 
Alternative 3 would also be consistent with the existing use and compatible with adjacent and 
surrounding land uses.

3.4.2	Visual Resources
Visual resources refer to the landscape character (i.e., what is seen), visual sensitivity (i.e., 
human preferences and values regarding what is seen), scenic integrity (i.e., degree of intactness 
and wholeness in landscape character), and landscape visibility (i.e., relative distances of seen 
areas) of a geographically defined viewshed.

An 8-foot high chain link fence surrounds the existing pumping station. The pumping station is 
only partially obscured from the access road due to the presence of the berm. The pumping 
station is not visible from Miller Road.

Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no impact to the visual resources of the project 
site and surrounding area because no changes would occur.

Alternative 2 - Relocation of Pumping Station (Proposed Action)
Under the Proposed Action, the pump station would be relocated to a vacant site approximately 
200 to 300 feet north of the existing pump station. Careful siting and adequate screening of the 
pumping station would ensure compatibility with adjacent uses and minimize visual impacts.

Alternative 3 - Elevation of Berm 
No visual impacts to the project site are anticipated from this alternative. Visual quality from the 
U-Haul property may be improved by a higher berm that further obscures the pumping station.

3.4.3	Noise 
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.

Noise, defined herein as undesirable sound, is federally regulated by the Noise Control Act of 
1972 (NCA). Although the NCA gives the EPA authority to prepare guidelines for acceptable 
ambient noise levels, it only charges those federal agencies that operate noise-producing 
facilities or equipment to implement noise standards. The EPA's guidelines, and those of many 
federal agencies, state that outdoor sound levels in excess of 55 dB DNL are "normally 
unacceptable" for noise-sensitive land uses such as residences, schools, and hospitals. The No 
Action Alternative would not increase noise levels because construction activities would not take 
place. Although construction would increase noise levels temporarily, because both the project 
site and the relocation site are in sparsely populated areas without receptors nearby, the Proposed 
Action and Alternative 3 are not anticipated to adversely impact the local population.

3.4.4	Public Services and Utilities
A 7-member Township Board oversees departments, commissions and other volunteer 
organizations that provide services to the residents of Flint Township including: Parks and 
Recreation Commission; Planning Commission Board of Appeals; Board of Review, Building 
Authority; Building Board of Appeals; Civil Service Commission; Compensation Commission; 
Economic Development Corporation; Airport Airpark Development Advisory Council; Election 
Commission; Fire Retirement Board; and Liquor Advisory Commission.

The Flint Township Police Department provides police protection to the project site. The Flint 
Township Police Department has 41 professional officers, including the Police Chief, 
supervisors, and patrol officers (Flint Township Police Department, 2001).

Fire protection services to the project site and relocation site are provided by the Flint Township 
Fire Department, which was established in 1947. The Township Fire Department has three fire 
stations and employs 14 full-time firefighters and 38 part-time, on-call firefighters. Three trained 
arson investigators and two state-certified fire safety inspectors are also on the Department staff 
(Flint Township, 2000).

The Fire Department maintains all 1,300 hydrants in the Township, which contains the largest 
water-main distribution system in Genesee County. Department vehicles include seven pump 
trucks, one tower, two chief's vehicles, a captain's vehicle; a walk-in van (Air Unit), three utility 
pickups, and an investigation van.

The existing use does not require the provision of solid waste disposal services to the site. 
Consumers Energy provides gas and electric service to the project site. The applicant provides 
water to the site, and the facility is operated as part of the wastewater disposal system. 
No utilities exist at the relocation site proposed under Alternative 2.

Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative
Under this alternative, no impacts are anticipated to essential public services or utilities. Because 
flooding is anticipated at the same historic levels, 100-year flood events are anticipated to 
continue to require Township services for emergency response and repair to the existing 
pumping station. Access to public services for the general population is not expected to be 
affected, except to the extent that municipal employees may not otherwise be available while 
responding to flooding at the pumping station.

Alternative 2 - Relocation of Pumping Station (Proposed Action)
Alternative 2 would reduce the requirement for Township response services to the project site. 
Under this alternative, a positive benefit may occur from reduced infiltration of floodwaters into 
the sanitary sewer system.

Alternative 3 - Elevation of Berm 
Alternative 3 is anticipated to reduce the requirement for Township response services to the 
project site. Under this alternative, a positive benefit may occur from reduced infiltration of 
floodwaters into the sanitary sewer system.

3.4.5	Traffic and Circulation
The project site is located at the southern terminus of Claude Road, a one-lane macadam road 
that runs in a north-south direction from Miller Road to the north. Miller Road is an east-west 
arterial providing regional access to the site. Located within one-half mile of the project site are 
Interstate 69 and Interstate 75/ U.S. Route 23. No impacts are anticipated to traffic or circulation 
under the No Action Alternative, Proposed Action, or Alternative 3; the work area for all 
alternatives is located at the terminus of a dead-end road. 

3.4.6	Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898)
EO 12898, entitled, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations 
and Low-Income Populations," directs federal agencies to "make achieving environmental 
justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on 
minority populations and low-income populations in the U.S."

This section examines the impact of the Proposed Action and alternatives on minority and low-
income populations and determines whether the Proposed Action and alternatives would have a 
disproportionately high and adverse effect on the populations.

The project site is located within Census Tract 109.12, Block Group 1, Block 1023. According to 
2000 U.S. Census Bureau data, there are no residents in this block group. A site reconnaissance 
verified that the block group consists of non-residential and predominantly highway commercial, 
lodging, and food establishment uses. The closest residence is located approximately one-third of 
a mile to the north on the north side of Miller Road and outside of the floodplain.

Census Tract 109.12, Block Group 1, which encompasses Block 1023 and the surrounding areas, 
has a population of 1,217 according to 2000 Census data. Approximately 84 percent of the 
population is White, 10 percent is African American, and 2.6 percent is Hispanic. The remaining 
portion of the population is comprised of Asian, Native American, or other races.

In 1990, the project site was formerly part of Census Tract 109.04, Block Group 4. In 1989 (the 
latest income data available), the median income per household for Block Group 4 was $16,378 
as opposed to the national median income of $38,837 (U.S. Census Bureau, 1990). 
Approximately 14.5 percent of the population was reported to be below the poverty level, which 
is slightly more than the national percentage of 13.1 for the same year. 
None of the Action Alternatives would have a disproportionately high or adverse effect on 
minority or low-income populations. There are no populations near the project area, or within a 
quarter-mile radius of the project site.

3.4.7	Safety and Security
Safety and security issues that have been considered in this EA include the health and safety of 
the area residents and the public at-large, and protection of personnel involved in construction 
activities. The project site is located at the end of a private road with adjacent vacant parcels. 
Historically, flood events have remained localized within the 100-year floodplain, an area that 
includes the project site and adjacent parcels, without reaching further north to Miller Road, a 
major thoroughfare for through traffic. However, there is a public health risk related to the 
overflow of sewage into Swartz Creek that results from the infiltration of stormwater into the 
pumping station and manhole. 

Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative
Under the No Action Alternative, the public health risk associated with the overflow of sewage 
into Swartz Creek (and then to the Flint River) during flood events would continue. 

Alternative 2 - Relocation of Pumping Station (Proposed Action)
There would be no impact to public safety and security from the Proposed Action. The relocation 
out of the floodplain and further from Swartz Creek would decrease the probability of a sewage 
overflow into Swartz Creek. The construction activity under this alternative would not impact the 
safety or accessibility of the roads in the area. However, construction activities could present 
safety risks to those performing the activities. To minimize risks to human safety and health, all 
construction activities would be performed using qualified personnel trained in the proper use of 
the appropriate equipment and all appropriate safety precautions. Additionally, all activities 
would be conducted in a safe manner in accordance with the standards specified in OSHA 
regulations.

Alternative 3 - Elevation of Berm 
There would be no adverse impact to public safety and security from Alternative 3. The 
improved flood control measures would decrease the probability of a sewage overflow into 
Swartz Creek. The construction activity under this alternative would not impact the safety or 
accessibility of the roads in the area. However, construction activities could present safety risks 
to those performing the activities. To minimize risks to human safety and health, all construction 
activities would be performed using qualified personnel trained in the proper use of the 
appropriate equipment and all appropriate safety precautions. Additionally, all activities would 
be conducted in a safe manner in accordance with the standards specified in OSHA regulations.

3.5	CULTURAL RESOURCES
In addition to review under NEPA, consideration of impacts to cultural resources is mandated 
under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as amended, and 
implemented by 36 CFR Part 800. Requirements include identification of significant historic 
properties that may be impacted by the Proposed Action. Historic properties are defined as 
archaeological sites, standing structures, or other historic resources listed in or eligible for listing 
in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (36 CFR 60.4).

As defined in 36 CFR Part 800.16(d), the Area of Potential Effect (APE) "is the geographic area 
or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or 
use of historic properties, if any such properties exist."

In addition to identifying historic properties that may exist in the proposed project's APE, FEMA 
must also determine, in consultation with the appropriate State Historic Preservation Officer 
(SHPO), what effect, if any, the action would have on historic properties. Moreover, if the 
project would have an adverse effect on these properties, FEMA must consult with the SHPO on 
ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse effect.

An on-line review of the Michigan State Register of Historic Places and the National Register of 
Historic Places was conducted (Michigan SHPO, 2002). This assessment identified the presence 
of five historic places within Flint Township. All of the sites are located further than 1 mile from 
the subject property and relocation site. Additionally, no properties over 50 years old were noted 
in the vicinity of the project sites during the site reconnaissance on March 7 and 8, 2002.
FEMA has concluded, and the Michigan SHPO concurs, that no archaeological or historic 
resources are present at either of the Action Alternative project sites. The FEMA determination 
letter dated May 7, 2003, and the SHPO review letter dated October 24, 2003 can be found in 
Appendix C. If artifacts or human remains are encountered during construction of Alternative 2 
or Alternative 3, work in the vicinity would be discontinued, and the applicant would 
immediately notify FEMA and the SHPO.

Tribal Religious Sites Investigation
In March 2002, Dewberry and Goodkind issued coordination letters requesting determination of 
the presence or absence of Indian Religious Sites and known archaeological sites on or near the 
project areas to the following tribal organizations: Pokagan Band, Potawatomi Indian Nation, 
Inc.; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community; Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians; 
Hannahville Indian Community; and Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa. No 
responses were received. 

After the project alternatives were modified, the Michigan Historical Center was contacted to 
obtain a list of tribes that could be impacted by the implementation of either of the alternatives. 
In a response letter, the Michigan Historical Center indicated that the Saginaw Chippewa Indian 
Tribe was the only tribe that claims cultural affiliation in the project area. A request for an 
evaluation of the presence or absence of Tribal Religious Sites within the project areas described 
in Alternatives 2 and 3 was submitted to the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe. In a response letter 
dated October 1, 2003, the Tribe indicated that no information about the presence of Indian 
Traditional Cultural Properties, Sacred Sites, or other Significant Properties near the project area 
is available. 

Section 4 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts are those effects on the environment that result from the incremental effect 
of the action when added to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of 
what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative effects 
can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, actions taking place over a period 
of time. 

Regardless of future development in Genesee County, if no action is taken, Pumping Station 
Number 1 would continue to incur flood damages from the 100-year event. Therefore, repair 
costs (incurred by the Division of Water and Waste Services) and the risk to public health and 
the environment resulting from sewage overflow would continue. Completion of the Proposed 
Action or Alternative 3 would not change the capacity of the pumping station and therefore 
would not encourage development in the area. No other projects that would affect or be affected 
by the Proposed Action or Alternative 3 are planned or ongoing in the project area. Therefore, no 
cumulative impacts are associated with the Proposed Action or Alternative 3. 


Section 5 Public Participation
[This section will be completed once FEMA approval is received to release the Draft EA for 
public review]

A public notice advertising the availability of the draft EA for public review was published in the 
Flint Journal on January 25, 2004 and was available for review online at the FEMA website:  
http://www.fema.gov/ehp/docs.shtm (Appendix D). The public was provided the opportunity to 
review the EA from January 25, 2004 to February 23, 2004 and comment on the Proposed 
Action. FEMA Region V office collected and compiled comments submitted by the public. A 
summary of public comments received by FEMA (if any) will be provided at the conclusion of 
the public comment period.
Public comments are provided in Appendix D.


Section 6 Mitigation Measures and Permits
This table provides a brief summary of the anticipated permitting and mitigation requirements 
for the proposed project alternatives.
[TABLE HAS 2 COLUMNS LABELED:
Alternatives AND
Permit/Mitigation Requirements

Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative
* No permits are required
* Protective measures to deter burrowing mammals should 
be considered to reduce the potential for damage to the 
berm. Such measures include using stone materials, 
riprap, or a chain link fence with a foundation at least 1 
foot below ground level.
* Vegetation, especially woody vegetation, should be 
removed from the pumping station berm to help retain its 
structural integrity. 

Alternative 2 - Relocation of Pumping Station (Proposed Action)
* The Applicant must follow all applicable local, state, and 
federal laws, regulations, and requirements. They must 
obtain and comply with all required permits and 
conditions from MDEQ prior to initiating work on the 
project. No staging of equipment or construction 
activities shall begin until all permits are obtained.
* Best management practices such as placing silt fences 
and hay bales, and seeding and mulching exposed soils 
shortly after disturbance would be used to prevent soil 
erosion and degradation of water quality in Swartz Creek 
* If project activities include the stockpiling of soil or fill 
on-site, the project applicant would cover these soils to 
help prevent fugitive dust and soil erosion. 
* Any excess excavated material would be removed for 
disposal at an appropriately permitted facility. No 
material would be deposited in floodplain or wetland 
areas.
* To reduce temporary impacts to air quality, the applicant 
would be required to water down construction areas 
when necessary.
* Running time of fuel-burning equipment would be 
minimized and engines would be maintained to reduce 
the emission of criteria pollutants.
* If required by MDEQ during permitting, site-specific 
wetland delineations would be conducted to evaluate 
wetland conditions and boundaries to avoid disturbance 
of these areas during construction. Wetland areas would 
be avoided during the removal of the pumping station 
from its current site.
* Any hazardous materials discovered, generated, or used 
during implementation of the proposed project would be 
disposed of and handled by the county in accordance 
with applicable local, state, and federal regulations.
* Careful siting and adequate screening of the pumping 
station would ensure compatibility with adjacent uses 
and minimize visual impacts.
* All construction activities would be conducted by trained 
personnel in compliance with the standards and 
regulations of OSHA to protect worker safety.
* If artifacts or human remains are encountered during 
construction, work in the vicinity would be discontinued, 
and the applicant would immediately notify FEMA and 
the SHPO. 

Alternative 3 - Elevation of Berm     
* The Applicant must follow all applicable local, state, and 
federal laws, regulations, and requirements. They must 
obtain and comply with all required permits and 
conditions from MDEQ prior to initiating work on the 
project. No staging of equipment or construction 
activities shall begin until all permits are obtained.
* Best management practices such as placing silt fences 
and hay bales, and seeding and mulching exposed soils 
shortly after disturbance would be used to prevent soil 
erosion and degradation of water quality in Swartz 
Creek.
* If project activities include the stockpiling of soil or fill 
on-site, the project applicant would cover these soils to 
help prevent fugitive dust and soil erosion.
* An MDEQ permit must be obtained under the State 
Floodplain Regulatory Authority, Part 31, Water 
Resources Protection, of the NREPA. 
* To reduce temporary impacts to air quality, the applicant 
would be required to water down construction areas 
when necessary.
* Running time of fuel-burning equipment would be 
minimized and engines would be maintained to reduce 
the emission of criteria pollutants.
* To minimize impacts to trees, the applicant would place 
temporary fences around the tree driplines to prevent 
damage from the encroachment of personnel and 
equipment on root systems.
* Vegetation, especially woody vegetation, should be 
removed from the pumping station berm to help retain its 
structural integrity.
* Protective measures to deter burrowing mammals should 
be considered to reduce the potential for damage to the 
berm. Such measures include using stone materials, 
riprap, or a chain link fence with a foundation at least 1 
foot below ground level.
* If required by MDEQ during permitting, site-specific 
wetland delineations would be conducted to evaluate 
wetland conditions and boundaries to avoid disturbance 
of these areas during construction. Wetland areas would 
be avoided during the construction of the berm and the 
electrical upgrades.
* The project would be reviewed and a MDEQ permit may 
be required under Part 303, Wetlands Protection, of the 
NREPA. 
* Any hazardous materials discovered, generated, or used 
during implementation of the proposed project would be 
disposed of and handled by the county in accordance 
with applicable local, state, and federal regulations.
* All construction activities would be conducted by trained 
personnel in compliance with the standards and 
regulations of OSHA to protect worker safety.
* If artifacts or human remains are encountered during 
construction, work in the vicinity would be discontinued, 
and the applicant would immediately notify FEMA and 
the SHPO.


Section 7 Consultations and References
The following agencies were consulted during the preparation of this Environmental 
Assessment:

Federal Agencies Consulted:
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service

State, City, and Local Agencies Consulted:
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

Michigan Department of Natural Resources

Michigan Historical Center

Hannahville Indian Community

Keweenaw Bay Indian Community

Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa

Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians

Pokagon Band, Potawatomi Indian Nation, Inc.

Genesee County Drain Commissioner - Division of Water & Waste Services

Genesee County Planning Commission

Flint Township, Building Department

Spaulding Township Offices


Distribution List:
Brent Paul, FEMA Headquarters

Bruce Menerey, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

Matt Schnepp, Michigan Department of State Police, Emergency Management Division


References:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002a. Surf Your Watershed. Retrieved April 4, 2002 
from http://cfpub.epa.gov/surf/.

EPA. 2002b. Air quality. Retrieved April 4, 2002 from 
http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/astate.html.

Farrand, W.R. and D.L. Bell. 1982. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), 

Geological Survey Division. Quaternary Geology of Southern Michigan. 1:500,000 map.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 1979. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM): 
Township of Flint, Michigan. Community Panel #260395 0010 B.

FEMA. 1996. National Environmental Policy Act: FEMA Desk Reference. Version III.

Flint Township, Michigan. 2002. Zoning Ordinance & Map.

Flint Township. 2000. Fire Department. Retrieved April 5, 2002 from 
http://www.flinttownship.com/fire.html.

Flint Township Police Department. 2001. Retrieved April 5, 2002 from 
http://www.flinttownshippolice.org/default.asp.

Genesee County Health Department. 2002. Health News: E.Coli Bacteria Levels in Swartz Creek 
and Flint River. Retrieved March 25, 2002 from http://health.co.genesee.mi.us/.

MDEQ. 2002. General Geology of Michigan. Retrieved March 23, 2002 from 
http://www.Michigan.gov/deq/1,1607,7-135-3308_3582-9680--,00.html and 
http://www.Michigan.gov/deq/1,1607,7-135-3308_3582-96840--,00.html.

Michigan Department of Transportation. 2002. State Road Map. Scale: 1 inch=14.5 miles.

Michigan State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). 2002. Listing of National and State 
Registers of Historic Places. Retrieved March 25, 2002 from 
http://michsite.state.mi.us/voyager.cfm.

Milstein, Randall L. 1987. MDEQ, Geological Survey Division. Bedrock Geology of Southern 
Michigan. 1:500,000 map.

National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Map. Flint South, Michigan. 1:80,000 map.

Native American Research in Michigan - Lesson Three-Addresses and URLS. 2002. Retrieved 
March 25, 2002 from http://hometown.aol.com/RoundSky/Lesson3.html. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 1990. Retrieved March 23, 2002 from http://factfinder.census.gov.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Retrieved March 23, 2002 from http://quickfacts.census.gov.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service. 1993. Soil 
Survey of Genesee County, Michigan.

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1983. Swartz Creek, Michigan 7.5 Minute 
Topographic Quadrangle.

USGS. 2002a. Earthquake Hazards Program (EHP): National 
Earthquake Information Center. Seismicity of the United States, 1568-present - East 

United States. Retrieved March 23, 2002 from 
http://geohazards.cr.usgs.gov/usqk/east.html.

USGS. 2002b. EHP: National 
Seismic Hazard Mapping Project. Hazard Lookup by Zip Code. Retrieved March 23, 
2002 from http://eqint.cr.usgs.gov/eq/html/zipcode.shtml. 

USGS. 2002c. NWIS Web Data for the Nation. Retrieved April 4, 2002 from 
http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis. 

VISTA Information Solutions, Inc. (VISTA). 2002. Site Assessment Report. Generated March 8, 
2002.


Personal Communications:
Corrigan, Mari. 2001. Township of Flint, Building Department. Personal Communication with 
Sara Doane, Dewberry-Goodkind, Inc. Environmental Planner (First). April 4, 2002.

Crespo, Mike. 2002. Genesee County Division of Water and Waste Services. Personal 
communication with Anthony Lee, Goodkind & O'Dea, Inc., Environmental Planner 
(Master). April 4, 2002.

Davidek, Tim. 2002. Chief of Operations and Maintenance for Genesee County Division of 
Water and Waste Services. Personal communication with William Marsh, Dewberry & 
Davis Senior Hydrologist and with Damiano Albanese, Dewberry-Goodkind, Inc. 
Environmental Planner (Master). March 8, 2002 and March 18, 2002.

O'Brien, John. 2002. Director, Genesee County Division of Water and Waste Services. Personal 
communication with Anthony Lee, Goodkind & O'Dea, Inc., Environmental Planner 
(Master). April 4, 2002.

Seaman, Richard N. 2002. Genesee County Drain Commission - Division of Water and Waste 
Services. Personal communication with Anthony Lee, Goodkind & O'Dea, Inc., 
Environmental Planner (Master). April 5, 2002. 


Section 8 List of Preparers:
Robert W. Rooks, P.E.
Civil Engineer (Master)
Dewberry & Davis, LLC
8401 Arlington Blvd.
Fairfax, VA 22031-4666
(703) 289-4782
Mr. Rooks is a registered professional engineer with 16 years of environmental consulting 
experience. His areas of professional practice have included contaminant site investigation and 
remedial design, broad-based environmental assessments, alternatives analysis, constructability 
review, and construction management. He has provided NEPA services on Department of 
Defense, Department of Transportation, Department of Labor, and Federal Emergency 
Management Agency projects since 1997.

Ileana Ivanciu, P.G.
Environmental Planner (Master)
Dewberry-Goodkind, Inc.
299 Webro Road
Parsippany, NJ 07054-3701
(973) 428-4909
Ms. Ivanciu has over 20 years experience in the environmental field including design and 
implementation of environmental analysis studies in compliance with NEPA requirements. She 
has managed and prepared CED, EA and EIS documents and conducted numerous studies 
associated with project development in environmentally sensitive areas.

Anthony Lee, AICP
Environmental Planner (Master)
Dewberry-Goodkind, Inc.
299 Webro Road
Parsippany, NJ 07054-3701
(973) 428-4909
Mr. Lee has 12 years of planning and environmental analysis experience including the 
management of environmental analyses and documentation for compliance with NEPA, New 
York Sate Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and California Environmental Quality 
Review Act (CEQA). He has managed and written Environmental Assessments and 
Environmental Impact Statements.

Steven Wheeler
Dewberry-Goodkind, Inc.
299 Webro Road
Parsippany, NJ 07054-3701
(973) 428-4909
Mr. Wheeler has over 19 years of environmental experience in consulting and assisting in the 
management of environmental projects. He has worked on numerous wetland related projects 
under NEPA, USACE and other regulatory compliance projects.

William Marsh
Senior Hydrologist
Dewberry & Davis, LLC
8401 Arlington Blvd.
Fairfax, VA 22031-4666
(703) 849-0442
Mr. Marsh has 5 years of experience in performing or reviewing hydrologic and hydraulic 
analyses. He has worked on FEMA projects supporting flood insurance and disaster assistance 
programs, and on Virginia Department of Transportation stormwater management projects.

Damiano Albanese
Environmental Planner (Master)
Dewberry-Goodkind, Inc.
299 Webro Road
Parsippany, NJ 07054-3701
(973) 428-4909
Mr. Albanese has 10 years of diverse experience, including the performance of technical 
environmental studies as part of environmental analysis projects conducted under NEPA; 
comprehensive preliminary assessments used in the evaluation of potential liabilities associated 
with hazardous materials/waste storage, handling, and disposal; evaluation of a facility's 
compliance with regulatory requirements, and the evaluation of on-site contaminated areas.

Jessica Prockup
Environmental Planner (First)
Dewberry-Goodkind, Inc.
299 Webro Road
Parsippany, NJ 07054-3701
(973) 428-4909
Ms. Prockup specializes in the biology and management of wetland systems. Her experience 
includes fish and aquatic invertebrate studies and avian and aquatic plant habitat management. 
Her responsibilities have included NEPA Checklist preparation, Ecological Assessments, 
Cultural Resource Assessments, and Phase I Environmental Site Assessments.

Sara N. Doane
Environmental Planner (First)
Dewberry-Goodkind, Inc.
299 Webro Road
Parsippany, NJ 07054-3701
(973) 428-4909
Ms. Doane specializes in Quaternary geology and coastal geomorphology. Her experience 
includes soil sampling and analysis, wetlands studies, GPS surveying, and technical and 
scientific writing. In addition, she has over 2 years of experience in Geographic Information 
Systems and Remote Sensing technology.

URS Group, Inc.
Tom Hay, Senior Environmental Scientist
Angela Chaisson, NEPA and Natural Resources Group Leader



Appendix A
Figures and Photographs


FIGURES
Figure 1
Regional Map
Figure one is showing a map of Michigan along with a detailed map of the project area. 
The detailed map shows surrounding roads, interstates, highways, and cities. 

Figure 2
Existing and Relocated Site Locations (USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle Map)
Figure two is a map of the existing pumping station and the proposed site locations depicted on a USGS 
topographic quadrangle map. Both the proposed and existing areas are south of Lennon Road, and southeast of Miller Road. 

Figure 3
Sanitary Trunk Line Locations
Figure three shows the sanitary trunk line locations. Highlighted areas are the pumping stations, 
Interstate 75, Miller Road, and the trunk lines. 

Figure 4
Soil Survey
Figure four is the soil survey for Genesee County. The existing and proposed areas are marked on the map. 
Point of reference for the map is Swartz Creek. Both locations are within an area of soil type Md surrounded by soil type Cn. 

Figure 5
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Community Panel No. 2603950010B
Figure five is a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the township of Flint, Michigan in Genesee County. Labeled on the map is 
the existing pumping station location which is located within the 100 year floodplain. The proposed location would move the 
pumping station out of the 100 year floodplain.

Figure 6
Flood Boundary and Floodway Map (FBFM) Community Panel No. 2603950010
Figure six is a Flood Boundary and Floodway Map (FBFM) for the township of Flint, Michigan in Genesee County. 
The existing pumping station is depicted within the floodway for Swartz Creek. The proposed pumping station location is 
north of the existing station outside of the floodway.

Figure 7
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Map
Figure seven is a wetlands map for the Genesee County Pumping Station Number One area. Both the proposed location 
and the existing location are highlighted on the map. No wetlands are shown in the immediate vicinity of the proposed site. 
The existing site is shown within an area of scrub-shrub wetlands. 


PHOTOGRAPHS

Picture #1: View to existing pumping station looking south along route of proposed excavation. 
View shows spatial relation of proposed activities to adjacent wetlands. Indicated excavation is approximate.

Picture #2: View of footprint of new pumping station looking north. Indicated footprint is approximate.
 
Picture #3: View from midpoint of proposed excavation looking north to proposed pumping station relocation. 
Indicated excavation and footprint are approximate.

Picture #4: View of existing pumping station and proposed excavation route looking southwest from midpoint 
of excavation route. Indicated excavation is approximate.

Picture #5: View of pumping station and berm looking west.



Appendix B
E.O. 11988 Floodplain Management 
Eight-Step Planning Process 

Executive Order 11988 Floodplain Management  
Executive Order 11990 Wetland Protection  
Eight-Step Planning Process Summary

Step 1: Determine whether the Proposed Action is located in a wetland and/or the 100-
year floodplain, or whether it has the potential to affect or be affected by a floodplain or 
wetland.

Project Analysis: Flint Township participates in the NFIP, and the project area is located on FIRM 
Community Panel No. 2603950010B, effective November 1, 1979. According to the FIRM and 
the Flood Boundary and Floodway Map (FBFM), the project site is located within the 100-year 
floodplain and floodway of Swartz Creek. Although the project site is depicted within the 
effective floodway for Swartz Creek on the FBFM, the site is actually located on an island of 
high ground and surrounded by floodway. According to NWI mapping and a site visit, scrub-
shrub and forested wetlands exist adjacent to the project site. No wetlands are present in the area 
immediately surrounding the pump station building and areas appear to be confined to the 
bottomlands and floodplain zone, and the Swartz Creek stream corridor. There are no wetlands in 
the vicinity of the relocation site.

Step 2: Notify public at earliest possible time of the intent to carry out an action in a 
floodplain or wetland, and involve the affected and interested public in the decision-making.

Project Analysis: Initial publication was provided by FEMA on October 29, 2000 in the 
Detroit Free Press. The public will be provided an opportunity to review and comment on the Draft EA. 

Step 3: Identify and evaluate practicable alternatives to locating the Proposed Action in 
a floodplain or wetland.

Project Analysis: The Proposed Action would relocate the pumping station outside of the 100-
year floodplain. The alternatives under consideration include:
Alternative 1: No Action
Alternative 2: Proposed Action. The pumping station would be relocated to a site outside of the 
100-year floodplain which is about 300 feet north of the current location and near Miller Road. 
Alternative 3: The existing berm would be elevated above the base flood elevation (BFE) by 
1 foot around the perimeter of the pumping station, and the pumping station's electrical 
components would be replaced and upgraded to withstand future flood damage. 

Step 4: Identify the full range of potential direct or indirect impacts associated with the 
occupancy or modification of floodplains and wetlands and the potential direct and indirect 
support of floodplain and wetland development that could result from the Proposed Action.

Project Analysis: Under the No Action Alternative, the pumping station would still be 
vulnerable to the 100-year storm event and the floodplain and wetlands would continue to be 
periodically inundated with sewage overflow. Under Alternative 2, the existing pumping station 
would be relocated outside of the 100-year and 500-year floodplains. The removal of the existing 
pumping station and earthen berm would increase the capacity of the floodplain, potentially 
decreasing flood elevations and velocities. This would be a beneficial effect. No effects to 
wetlands are anticipated under this alternative. Under Alternative 3, the berm would be raised 1 
foot above the BFE. A hydrologic and hydraulic analysis of the Alternative 3 concluded that the 
new berm height would protect the pumping station from the 100-year event, while causing 
only minimal localized flood elevation increases in the vicinity of the pump station. There would 
be no impact to the floodway or to flood elevations upstream or downstream of the 
pumping station. Since there are no wetlands in the immediate vicinity of the pumping station, 
there would be no direct impact to wetlands. There would be an indirect benefit to the wetlands 
(and floodplains) because of the reduction of sewage overflow from the pumping station.

Step 5: Minimize the potential adverse impacts to work within floodplains and wetlands to be 
identified under Step 4, restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by 
wetlands.

Project Analysis: The MDEQ would review the project under Part 303, Wetlands Protection and 
Part 31, Water Resources Protection of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection 
Act (NREPA), as amended. The applicant must comply with the terms and conditions of any 
permit issued by MDEQ, including any mitigation measures identified by MDEQ. 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 construction activities shall begin until all permits are obtained. The 
Applicant must apply best management practices for soil erosion prevention and containment 
during staging of equipment and construction activities. Any excess excavated material would 
be taken off-site and disposed of at a properly permitted facility.. No excess material would be 
disposed of in a floodplain or wetland. Wetland areas would be avoided during the relocation of 
the pumping station. 

Step 6: Re-evaluate the Proposed Action to determine 1) if it is still practicable in light of 
its exposure to flood hazards; 2) the extent to which it will aggravate the hazards to others; 
and 3) its potential to disrupt floodplain and wetland values.

Project Analysis: The Proposed Action remains practicable based on the flood prevention 
objective. It will not disrupt floodplain or wetland values.

Step 7: If the agency decides to take an action in a floodplain or wetland, prepare and provide 
the public with a finding and explanation of any final decision that the floodplain or 
wetland is the only practicable alternative. The explanation should include any relevant factors 
considered in the decision-making process.

Project Analysis: The Proposed Action will not take place in wetlands or the 100-year floodplain 
so public notification is not necessary. 

Step 8: Review the implementation and post-implementation phases of the Proposed Action 
to ensure that the requirements of the EOs are fully implemented. Oversight responsibility 
shall be integrated into existing processes. 

Project Analysis: This step is integrated into the NEPA process and FEMA project management 
and oversight functions.



Appendix C
Agency Correspondence 

For copies of agency correspondence, contact:
Janet Frey
URS Group, Inc.
200 Orchard Ridge Drive
Suite 101
Gaithersburg, MD 20878



Appendix D
Public Notice


Federal Emergency Management Agency
PUBLIC NOTICE
Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Assessment  
for the Genesee County Drain Commission - Division of Water and Waste Services in Flint 
Township, Genesee County, Michigan

Environmental Assessment for Pumping Station No. 1 Flood Mitigation, Genesee County Drain 
Commissioner, Genesee County, Michigan. FEMA DR-1346-MI

Interested persons are hereby notified that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 
is proposing to assist in the funding of flood mitigation measures for a sewage pumping station 
located in Flint Township. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 
1969 and the implementing regulations of FEMA, an Environmental Assessment (EA) is being 
prepared to assess the potential impacts of the proposed action on the human and natural 
environment. This also provides public notice to invite public comments on the proposed project 
in accordance with Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, and Executive Order 
11990, Protection of Wetlands. In addition, this notice and the draft EA provide information to 
the public on potential impacts to historic and cultural resources from the proposed undertaking, 
as outlined in the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.

The EA evaluates alternatives that provide for compliance with applicable environmental laws.

The alternatives to be evaluated include (1) No Action; (2) The Proposed Action, which would 
relocate the pumping station outside of the 100-year floodplain; and (3) Elevation of Berm which 
would raise a berm surrounding the pumping station to approximately one foot above the base 
flood (100-year) elevation and replace and upgrade electrical systems. 

The draft Environmental Assessment is available for review between January 25, 2004 and 
February 23, 2004, at the Flint Public Library at 1026 E. Kearsley Street in Flint, MI 48503, 
between the hours of 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., Monday thru Thursday, and from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on 
Friday and Saturday. The draft Environmental Assessment is also available for review online at 
the FEMA website http://www.fema.gov/ehp/docs.shtm. 

Written comments regarding this environmental action should be received no later than 5 p.m. on 
February 23, 2004, by Jeanne Millin, Regional Environmental Officer, 536 Clark Street, 6th 
Floor, Chicago, IL 60605-1521 or at Jeanne.Millin@fema.gov.

If no comments are received by the above deadline, the draft EA will be considered final and a 
Finding of No Significant Impact will be published by FEMA.



Appendix E
Public Comments


Comments received during the public comment period will be provided here.