1 1

2 

## DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS) 3

4

5


## SYNOPSIS OF ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD TO SUPPORT 6 

## PROPOSED NEW CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS UNDER 7 

## THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT 8

9

10

11 

## May 2014 12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

342 

### I. Overview 1

2 The Department of Homeland Security (DHS or Department) has prepared a revision to 3 its procedures for implementing the Nationa l Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which 4

are found in the draft revised DHS Dir ective and Instruction 023-01, Revision 01 5 (Directive and Instruction). The draft revised Directive and Instruction are being 6 circulated for public review and comment al ong with this document. Readers of this 7 document are encouraged to refer to the dr aft revised Directive and Instruction for 8 definitions of terms and information about the organization of the Department. 9

10 As part of the revision to its NEPA procedures , DHS intends to retain its existing list of 11 NEPA categorical exclusions (CATEXs). These existing CATEXs are as follows: the 12 list published with the Depart ment’s original NEPA proce dures (Fed. Reg., Vol. 71, No. 13 64, April 4, 2006); the list of CATEXs for th e U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) (Commandant 14 Instruction M16475.1D, Nov. 29, 2000, and Fed. Reg., Vol. 67, No. 141, July 23, 2002), 15 which were appended to DHS Directive 023-01, Rev. 00 in October 2011; and the 16 recently published USCG CATEX for real property disposal (Fed. Reg., Vol. 78, 17 No.141, July 23, 2013). 18

19 In addition, and as will be described in deta il in this document, DHS is proposing to add 20 the following new CATEXs to its NEPA procedures: 21

 One (1) new CATEX for an administrative activity; 22

 Five (5) new CATEXs for real estate /real property management activities; 23

 19 new CATEXs for Federal assistan ce activities (e.g., grants); and 24

 13 new CATEXs for non-grant activities unique to the mission and authorities of 25 the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 26

27 The Department’s existing and proposed new CATEXs are found in Appendix A, Table 28

1 of the draft revised Instruction. In th at table, CATEX A8, CATEXs C6 through C10, 29

and all of the CATEXs in Sections M and N are being proposed as new CATEXs and 30

are labeled as such. All other CATEXs in the table are existing CATEXs that DHS 31 intends to retain. The existing CATEXs in Sections A through G are available for use 32 across the entire Department. The proposed new CATEXs in Sections A, C, and N 33

would also be available for use across the entire Department. The CATEXs in Sections 34 H through L are for use by only the DHS Component specified in the section heading. 35 Similarly, the proposed new CATEXs in S ection M would be for use only by FEMA. 36

37 In addition to proposing new CATEXs, DHS is proposing a minor admi nistrative change 38 regarding the one existing uni que CATEX for the United States Visitor and Immigrant 39 Status Indicator Technology (US-VISIT) Program published in 2006. The CATEX 40 covers the placement of a portable or re-locatab le facility or structure used to collect 41 traveler data at or adjacent to an exis ting port of entry to the U.S. The 2013 DHS 42 Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-6) establis hed the Office of Biometric Identity 43 Management (OBIM), which replaced US-V ISIT. Elements of US-VISIT were 44 transitioned to the following three differen t DHS Components: the National Protection 453 and Programs Directorate (NPPD) where OBIM is organizationally located, the U.S. 1 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (IC E), and the U.S. Customs and Border 2 Protection (CBP). In particular, the ac tivities covered by the CATEX have been 3 transferred to CBP, which is the DHS Com ponent responsible for entry-exit policy and 4 operations. Therefore, DHS proposes to m ove the CATEX to the list of CBP-unique 5 CATEXs, which is included in Appendix A, Table 1, Section K of the draft revised 6

Instruction. 7

8 This document provides the rationale and supporting inform ation for the proposed new 9 CATEXs. In a separate effort anticipated to begin in the latter part of Fiscal Year 2014, 10 DHS intends to perform a comprehensive evaluation of all of its CATEXs in accordance 11 with the periodic review of CATEXs recommended by the Council on Environmental 12 Quality (CEQ) in its Guidance Memorandum Establishing, Applying and Revising 13 Categorical Exclusions under the National Environmental Policy Act (November 23, 14 2010), and the regulatory review requ irements in Executive Order 13563, Improving 15 Regulation and Regulatory Review . However, because of operational needs deriving 16 from the creation of DHS, which include incorporating FEMA and USCG into the 17 Department’s NEPA procedures, DHS proposes at this time to retain its existing 18

CATEXs and to add new CATEXs that addr ess Federal assistance and FEMA activities 19 that are not sufficiently cove red by its existing CATEXs. 20

21 

### II. Methods Used to Sub stantiate Proposed New CATEXs 22

23 The CEQ guidance states that when substant iating a new or revised CATEX, agencies 24 may draw on several sources of supporting information. These sources include the 25 experiences and opinions of pr ofessional staff; assessments of the environmental effects 26 of previously implemented agency ac tions; and benchmarking other agencies' 27 experiences. Information from a number of sources was gathered and evaluated to 28 substantiate each proposed new CATEX put fo rth in this document. These different 29 types of supporting informati on are described below. 30

31 

### Existing Comparable CATEXs 32

33 DHS is relying on existing comparable Department-wide and Component-specific 34 CATEXs to support several of the proposed new CATEXs. The existing CATEXs are 35 based on years of DHS experien ce conducting activities that do not result in significant 36 impacts on the quality of the human envir onment. Many of the existing DHS CATEXs 37 were developed with DHS owned or managed facilities in mind; however, they cover 38 activities that are similar in scope, nature, a nd intensity to activities that DHS regularly 39 funds under its numerous grant programs, partic ularly those currently administered by 40 FEMA. Therefore, several existing compar able DHS CATEXs were used to support 41 CATEXs for similar activities undertaken by non-DHS entities who are the recipients of 42 DHS grant funding or other assistance. Sim ilarly, several existing USCG administrative 43 and real property CATEXs cover activities that are similar in scope, nature, and intensity 44 to activities undertaken by ot her DHS Components; therefore, DHS relied on existing 45 comparable USCG CATEXs to support the es tablishment of new CATEXs that can be 464 used Department-wide by any Component. In relying on existing comparable CATEXs, 1 DHS performed a careful evaluation to de termine that the activities are indeed 2 appropriately excluded from the need to perform a higher level of NEPA evaluation 3 because they do not individually or cumula tively have the potential to result in 4 significant impacts on the quality of the human environment. 5

6 

### Supporting Environmental Assessments (EAs) and Findings of No 7 

### Significant Impact (FONSIs) 8

9 DHS, through FEMA, has extensive experience to justify that the establishment of new 10 CATEXs for a variety of Federal assistance a nd FEMA activities is appropriate. Over 11 600 NEPA environmental assessments (EAs) for FEMA actions have been prepared 12 since 1996. DHS evaluated the effects of impl emented actions that were analyzed in 13 EAs that consistently supported Findings of No Signi ficant Impact (FONSI) and did not 14 require preparation of environmental impact statements (EISs); based on this evaluation, 15 DHS determined that many grant-funded act ivities and FEMA disaster operations and 16 flood insurance activities do not individually or cumulatively result in significant 17 impacts on the quality of the human environm ent. Summaries of several EAs for these 18 activities to support the proposed new CATEXs are provided in this document, as well 19 as links to where the EAs are posted on the FEMA website. Please note that not all 20 FEMA NEPA documents may be available on- line; to request a copy of a particular 21 document referenced herein, please send an email to SEP-EPHP@hq.dhs.gov . In 22 compiling examples to include in this document, FEMA NEPA practitioners and 23 environmental protection specialists identified EAs that closely matched the activities 24 covered by the proposed CATEX and resulted in FONSIs, and reviewed mitigation 25 measures implemented for those activities to determine whether limiting factors (e.g., 26 scale, proximity to environmentally sensitiv e areas) needed to be included in the 27 proposed CATEX. 28

29 

### Benchmarking Other Agency Experience 30

31 Other Federal agencies have CATEXs for actions similar to DHS actions. Other 32 agencies’ CATEXs have been found to be su fficiently descriptive to determine that 33 those activities are similar in nature, sc ope, and impact on the human environment as 34 those performed by DHS. In particular , DHS relied on some General Services 35 Administration (GSA) CATEXs to help substa ntiate some of its proposed new CATEXs. 36

37 

### Professional Experience 38

39 DHS is also relying upon the experience and judgment of its NEPA practitioners, 40 environmental protection specialis ts, and legal professionals to substantiate some of the 41 proposed new CATEXs. These staff repres ent several DHS Components, primarily 42 DHS Headquarters, FEMA, USCG, and CBP. 43

44

All DHS staff that contributed to this an alysis have the requi site experience and 45 technical expertise to asse ss the potential environmenta l effects of proposed DHS 465 actions. This includes numerous years of environmental planning and compliance 1 experience, including the performance of pr ogrammatic and site-specific environmental 2 impact analyses and preparation of envir onmental documentation such as EAs, FONSIs, 3 EISs, and Records of Decision. For exampl e, the FEMA staff that contributed to 4 CATEX development have considerable e xperience in implementing FEMA’s NEPA 5 and floodplain management regulations (44 CFR Parts 9 and 10) and evaluating the 6 potential environmental effects of proposed activities under a variet y of disaster and 7 non-disaster grant programs. Several FEMA Regional Environmental Officers, Deputy 8 Environmental Officers, and environmental pr otection specialists were interviewed and 9 provided a consensus professional opinion to substantiate some of the proposed new 10 Federal assistance and FEMA CATEXs; summa ries of their professional opinions and 11

credentials are included in this document. Also, USCG and CBP, respectively, manage 12 the largest and second larges t real property portfolios in the Department. NEPA 13 practitioners and environmental protection sp ecialists in these two Components have 14 extensive experience evaluating potential e nvironmental impacts of proposed real 15 estate/real property management activities fo r facilities owned and/or managed by these 16 Components across the United St ates, including in geographi c areas where a variety of 17 environmentally sensitive re sources may be present. 18

19 

### III. The Need for New CATEXs for FEMA and Federal 20 

### Assistance Activities 21

22

Note to readers: Normally, the use of “DHS” or “Depar tment” is inclusive of all of the 23 Components thereof (for the list of majo r Components making up the Department, see 24

the DHS website at https://www.dhs.gov/department-components ). However, for 25 purposes of this document, a distinction is sometimes made between DHS and FEMA. 26

This is done in order to make it clear that several of the proposed new CATEXs rely 27 heavily on the experience and expertise of this one particular DHS component – FEMA 28

– and to make it clear which of the followi ng two existing lists of CATEXs is being 29 referred to: 1) the existing DHS CATEXs (see Section I, 2 nd paragraph above), which do 30 not apply to FEMA actions; or 2) the ex isting CATEXs in FEMA’s regulations for 31 implementing NEPA at 44 CFR 10.8, which apply only to FEMA and not to any other 32 DHS Component. 33

34 FEMA’s last major revision of its CATEXs was in 1996 when it modified the language 35 of CATEXs in the previous list and a dded new CATEXs (Fed. Reg., Vol. 61, No. 52, 36 March 15, 1996). Shortly after this cha nge, FEMA’s environmental planning and 37 historic preservation (EP&HP) program bega n documenting actions that could benefit 38 from new CATEXs or edits that could improve the clarity of the existing CATEXs. By 39 2000, FEMA’s EP&HP program had developed a list of comprehensive changes to 44 40

CFR Part 10 that included revisions to the ex isting text of the CATEXs, consolidation, 41

and addition of new CATEXs. The list wa s vetted internally within FEMA in 2001. 42 The update to FEMA’s NEPA regulations was put on hold when FEMA became part of 43

DHS in 2003. 44

456 DHS issued its NEPA procedures, incl uding CATEXs, as a final directive and 1 instruction in 2006. However, since that time FEMA has continued to follow its 2 regulations at 44 CFR Part 10 and to use the CATEXs therein, and has been working 3 with DHS Headquarters – Sustainability and Environmental Programs to incorporate its 4 needs into the Department’s NEPA procedur es. This effort has included identifying 5 FEMA mission-unique and Fe deral assistance activities that FEMA normally 6 categorically excludes from a higher level of NEPA analysis that are not adequately 7 covered by the existing DHS CATEXs. This ga p analysis resulted in the development of 8 the numerous proposed new CATEXs that are described in this document and that are 9 proposed for inclusion in the update to the Department’s NEPA procedures. The 10 proposed new CATEXs are necessary in order for FEMA to be incorporated into the 11 Department’s NEPA procedures and for FEMA to efficiently carry out its mission while 12 being compliant with NEPA. Once the update s to DHS Directive and Instruction 023- 13 01, Rev. 01 are final and become effective acr oss the Department, FEMA’s regulations 14 for implementing NEPA at 44 CFR Pa rt 10 will be rescinded. 15

16 DHS currently administers approximately 80 Federal assistance programs (e.g., grant 17 programs). These programs provide assistance such as funding to non-DHS entities for 18 a wide range of emergency management (e .g., disaster preparedness, response, and 19 recovery, and hazard mitigation) and home land security projects and activities. 20 Depending on the authorizing statute for a pa rticular program, entities who may be 21 eligible to receive assistance from DHS incl ude Tribal, state, a nd local governments; 22 public and private profit and nonprofit organiza tions and institutions; and individual 23 citizens. FEMA currently administers the majority of Federal assistance programs in 24 DHS. The Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance (see https://www.cfda.gov ) 25 provides the list of programs available each year. 26

27 Because of FEMA’s expanding role in pr oviding Federal assistance, several new 28 CATEXs are proposed for those activities for which DHS has determined there is no 29 potential for individually or cumulatively significant impacts on the quality of the 30 human environment. DHS relied heavily on years of FEMA experience in the 31 development of these CATEXs. However, rather than limiting the proposed CATEXs 32

for Federal assistance activities to use only by FEMA, DHS intends for these CATEXs 33 to be available across the Department b ecause of the possibility that other DHS 34 Components besides FEMA administer Federa l assistance programs or may administer 35 such programs in the future. Regardless of which DHS Component provides such 36 assistance to non-DHS entities, DHS has determined that the Federally-assisted activities 37 contemplated by the proposed new CATEXs w ould not normally have the potential for 38 individually or cumulativ ely significant impacts on the quality of the human 39 environment, and therefore would not nor mally require a greater level of NEPA 40 analysis. The proposed new CATEXs for Fe deral assistance activities are included in 41 Section N of Table 1 in Appendix A of the draft revi sed Instruction. 42

43

Several new CATEXs are also being proposed for activities unique to FEMA, such as 44 the administration of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and the Agency’s 45 various disaster and emergency preparedness, response, and recovery operations. The 467 proposed new FEMA-unique CATEXs are included in Section M of Table 1 in 1 Appendix A of the draft revised Instruction. 2 Many of the proposed CATEXs for FEMA and Fe deral assistance activities are the same 3 as or very similar to those found in FEMA’s existing list of CATEX s in its regulations 4 for implementing NEPA at 44 CFR 10.8. FEMA’s NEPA practitioners have determined 5 that the CATEXs remain valid and are necessary in order for the Agency to effectively 6 and efficiently comply with NEPA, and theref ore should be retained and included in the 7 update to the Department’s NEPA procedur es. Other proposed CATEXs for FEMA and 8

Federal assistance activities are similar to those found in the existing DHS NEPA 9 procedures, but are intended to apply to actions undertaken by non-DHS entities (e.g., 10 Tribal, state, and local gove rnments) using DHS grant f unding or other assistance; 11 whereas many of the existing DHS CATEXs a pply to activities unde rtaken directly by 12 DHS at Department-owned or managed propert y or facilities. DHS is also proposing 13

several new CATEXs for FEMA activities a nd Federal assistance activities that have 14 been developed as a result of FEMA’s expanding authorities and programs and 15 extensive experience in evaluating potential environmental impacts of Agency actions 16 (both grant and non-grant) over the past eighteen years since FEMA’s CATEXs were 17 last updated. 18

19 

### IV. Record of Environm ental Consideration (REC) 20

21

DHS has determined that documentation of site or project specific information for the 22 application of some of the proposed new CA TEXs is necessary to support the finding 23 that the proposed action appropr iately fits the category, that extraordinary circumstances 24 either do not exist or have been appropriat ely addressed, and to meet administrative 25 record requirements for EP&HP requirements other than NEPA, such as the National 26 Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the Enda ngered Species Act (ESA), Executive Order 27 (EO) 11988 – Floodplain Management, Execu tive Order 11990 – Protection of 28 Wetlands, and many others. Those proposed new CATEXs that would require such 29 documentation are denoted with an asterisk (* ). The documentation required would be a 30

record of environmental consid eration (REC). A REC templa te is included as Appendix 31

C in the draft revised Instruction. 328 

## PROPOSED NEW DHS-WIDE CATEXS 1

2 The following CATEXs (A8, and C6 through C10) are proposed new CATEXs that 3 would be available to any DHS Component for application to the activities described 4

therein. 5

6
ADMINISTRATIVE AND REGU LATORY ACTIVITIES 7

8 Proposed text: A8 Review of documents, at t he request of other agencies or 9 entities, that did not originate in DHS. 10

11 Rationale and Support for CATEX 12

13 This is a proposed new CATEX based on analys is from the USCG and the experience of 14 NEPA practitioners and environmental protectio n specialists in other DHS Components. 15 Because of subject matter exper tise within DHS or DHS missions or activities that could 16 impact or be impacted by the missions or activities of other agencies or entities, DHS 17 may be asked to review and provide comme nts on proposals and anal yses prepared by 18 those other agencies or entities. There is a need for this new CATEX because of the 19 increased frequency of which DHS is asked to review documents originating outside of 20 the Department; the mere review of documen ts would not have any impact on the human 21 environment and therefore should not trig ger an extensive evaluation under NEPA. 22

23 Comparable CATEXs 24

25
USCG CATEX 26

27 ( L4) Review of documents, such as st udies, reports, and analyses, prepared for 28 legislative proposals that did not originate in DHS and that rela te to matters that are not 29 the primary responsibility of the USCG. 30

31
REAL ESTATE ACTIVITIES 32

33 Proposed text: * C6 Congressionally-mandated conv eyance of DHS controlled 34 real property to a non-Federal entity. 35

36 Rationale and Support for CATEX 37

38 This is a proposed new CATEX based on anal ysis from the USCG (the Component that 39 manages the largest amount of real property in DHS) and the nature of real property 40 (i.e., kinds and uses) across the Department. DHS is not considered a land managing 41 agency; it is responsible for many small pa rcels of land, with most not exceeding 20 42 acres in size and the larges t comprising 20,000 acres. Buildings and structures, not land, 43 make up the majority of the Department’s re al property portfolio. DHS real property 44 serves a wide variety of uses, including but not limited to the following: office, 45 classroom, and other administrative space; wate rfront and maritime facilities; airfields; 469 employee housing; research, development, te sting and evaluation (RDT&E) activities; 1 communications infrastructure; industrial activ ities; and law enforcement and fire fighter 2 training and exercises. 3

4 In the Department’s experience, Congress has generally mandated conveyance of DHS 5 controlled real property for either of two purposes – one is for uses that are the same as 6 or similar to those of DHS, and the other is for an outright sale to an unknown buyer for 7 unknown purposes. When Congress mandates a tr ansfer of real property, DHS has no 8

discretion whether or not to make the transf er; DHS at most may only have discretion on 9 some aspects of how the transfer is ex ecuted. Based on the experiences of NEPA 10 practitioners and environmental protection speci alists in DHS Components that have real 11 property management responsibilities, C ongressionally-mandated conveyances of any 12 DHS controlled real property is not likely to result, either individually or cumulatively, 13 in significant impacts on the human environment. 14

15 Application of this CATEX to a proposed action would require a REC to document 16 alignment with the scope of the CATEX, ev aluation of extraordinary circumstances, and 17 compliance with other EP&HP requirements. 18

19 Comparable CATEXs 20

21

USCG CATEX 22

23 ( * L18) Congressionally mandated conveyance of Coast Guard controlled real property 24 to another Federal agency or non-Federal entity. 25

26 Benchmarking Other Agency Experience 27

28 Other Federal agencies also have CATEXs for this type of action, which serve as 29 additional support for the proposed new DHS CATEX. For example, GSA has 30 considerable experience with a variety of real property management activities, such as 31 leasing, licensing, selling, and disposal. GSA has determined that many of these 32 activities do not have the poten tial to significantly impact the human environment. 33

34 DHS considered the following CATEXs from the GSA in its analysis: 35

36 Disposal of real property required by public law wherein Congress has not specifically 37 exempted the action from the requirements of NEPA. (References: GSA Order ADM 38

1095.1F – Environmental Considerations in Decisionmaking; GSA PBS NEPA Desk 39 Guide (October 1999); Fed. Reg., Vol. 63, No. 123, June 26, 1998) 40

41 Proposed text: * C7 The initial lease of, or grant of an easement interest in, 42 DHS-controlled real property to a non- Federal entity or the amendment, 43 renewal, or termination of such lease or easement interest where the proposed 44 real property use is similar to existing uses. 45

4610 Rational and Support for CATEX 1

2 This is a proposed new CATEX based on anal ysis from the USCG (the Component that 3 manages the largest amount of real property in DHS) and the nature of real property 4 (i.e., kinds and uses) across the Department. DHS is not considered a land managing 5 agency; it is responsible for many small pa rcels of land, with most not exceeding 20 6 acres in size and the larg est comprising 20,000 acres. Buildings and structures – not 7 land – make up the majority of the Departme nt’s real property por tfolio. DHS real 8 property serves a wide variety of uses, including but not lim ited to the following: office, 9 classroom, and other administrative space; wate rfront and maritime facilities; airfields; 10 employee housing; RDT&E activities; comm unications infrastructure; industrial 11 activities; and law enforcement and fi re fighter training and exercises, 12

13 In the Department’s experience, leases of DHS controlled real property are normally 14 granted for uses that are the same as or compatible with DHS uses, and easements are 15 normally granted for utilities. DHS remains u ltimately in control of the real property 16 under these activities, and therefore DHS’s NEPA complia nce responsibilitie s still apply 17 and there would be no change in the level of protection afforded the real property or the 18 human environment. Based on the expe riences of NEPA practitioners and 19 environmental protection specialists in DHS Components that have real property 20 management responsibilities, leases or eas ements of any DHS c ontrolled real property 21 are not likely to result, either individually or cumulatively, in significant impacts on the 22

human environment. 23

24 Application of this CATEX to a proposed action would require a REC to document 25 alignment with the scope of the CATEX, ev aluation of extraordin ary circumstances, and 26 compliance with other EP&HP requirements. 27

28 Comparable CATEXs 29

30
USCG CATEX 31

32 ( * L7) The initial lease of, or grant of, an eas ement interest in, Coast Guard-controlled 33 real property to a non-Federal party or the am endment, renewal, or termination of such 34 lease or easement interest where the reasonably foreseeable real property use will not 35 change significantly and is similar to existing uses. 36

37 Benchmarking Other Agency Experience 38

39 Other Federal agencies also have CATEXs for this type of action, which serve as 40 additional support for the proposed new DHS CATEX. For example, GSA has 41 considerable experience with a variety of real property management activities, such as 42 leasing, licensing, selling, and disposal. GSA has determined that many of these 43 activities do not have the poten tial to significantly impact the human environment. GSA 44 also determined that many of these activiti es qualify for an “automatic” CATEX, and do 45 not require additional documentation. 4611 DHS considered the following CATEXs from the GSA in its analysis: 1

2 Outlease or license of governm ent-controlled space, or s ublease of government-leased 3 space to a non-Federal tenant when the us e will remain substantially the same. 4 (References: GSA Order ADM 1095.1F – Environmental Considerations in 5 Decisionmaking; GSA PBS NEPA Desk Guid e (October 1999); Fed. Reg., Vol. 63, No. 6 123, June 26, 1998) 7

8 Outleases, licenses, and other arrangements for non-federal use of space in existing 9 Federal office buildings, where such use is consistent with local planning and zoning, 10 where Section 106 of the NHPA is complie d with where applicable; and there is no 11 evidence of community controversy or unresolved environmental issues. (References: 12

GSA Order ADM 1095.1F – Environmental C onsiderations in D ecisionmaking; GSA 13 PBS NEPA Desk Guide (October 1999) ; Fed. Reg., Vol. 63, No. 123, June 26, 1998) 14

15 Proposed text: *C8 The grant of a license to a non-Federal entity to perform 16 specified acts upon DHS-controlled real pr operty or the amendme nt, renewal, or 17 termination of such license where the pr oposed real property use is similar to 18 existing uses. 19

20 Rationale and Support for CATEX 21

22 This is a proposed new CATEX based on anal ysis from the USCG (the Component that 23 manages the largest amount of real property in DHS) and the nature of real property 24 (i.e., kinds and uses) across the Department. 25

26 In the Department’s experience, licenses of DHS controlled real property are normally 27 granted for uses that are the same as or compatible with DHS uses. DHS remains 28 ultimately in control of the real property under these activities, and therefore DHS’s 29 NEPA compliance responsibilities still apply and there would be no change in the level 30 of protection afforded the real property or the human environment. Based on the 31 experiences of NEPA practi tioners and environmental pr otection specialists in DHS 32 Components that have real pr operty management responsibili ties, licensing of any DHS 33 controlled real property is not likely to result, either in dividually or cumulatively, in 34 significant impacts on the human environment. 35

36 Application of this CATEX to a proposed action would require a REC to document 37 alignment with the scope of the CATEX, ev aluation of extraordinary circumstances, and 38 compliance with other EP&HP requirements. 39

40 Comparable CATEXs 41

42
USCG CATEX 43

4412 (*L8) The grant of a license to a non-Federal party to perform specified acts upon Coast 1 Guard-controlled real property or the amendment, renewal, or termination of such 2 license where the proposed real proper ty use is similar to existing uses. 3

4 Proposed text: C9 Allowing another Federal agency to use DHS-controlled real 5 property under a permit, use agreement, or similar arrangement or the 6 amendment, renewal, or termination of su ch permit or agreem ent where the real 7 property use is similar to existing uses. 8

9 Rationale and Support for CATEX 10

11 This is a proposed new CATEX based on anal ysis from the USCG (the Component that 12 manages the largest amount of real property in DHS) and the nature of real property 13 (i.e., kinds and uses) across the Department. 14

15 In the Department’s experience, other Fede ral agencies are normally allowed to use 16 DHS controlled real property for uses that are the same as or compatible with DHS uses. 17 DHS remains ultimately in control of the real property under these activities, and 18 therefore DHS’s NEPA compliance responsibil ities still apply a nd there would be no 19 change in the level of protect ion afforded the real property or the human environment. 20 Based on the experiences of NEPA pract itioners and environmental protection 21 specialists in DHS Components that have real property management responsibilities, 22 allowing another Federal agency to use any DHS controlled real property is not likely to 23 result, either individually or cumulati vely, in significant impacts on the human 24

environment. 25

26 Comparable CATEXs 27

28
USCG CATEX 29

30 (*L9) Allowing another Federal agency to us e Coast Guard-controlled real property 31 under a permit, use agreement, or similar arra ngement or the amendment, renewal, or 32 termination of such permit or agreement wh ere the real property use is similar to 33 existing uses. 34

35 Proposed text: C10 Real property inspections to ensure compliance with deed 36

or easement restrictions. 37

38 Rationale and Support for CATEX 39

40 This is a proposed new CATEX based on anal ysis from the USCG (the Component that 41 manages the largest amount of real property in DHS) and the nature of real property 42 (i.e., kinds and uses) across the Department. 43

44 Real property inspections involve non-invasive activities such as visual observation and 45 pedestrian surveys. These activities by their nature do not ha ve the potential to 4613 significantly impact the human environmen t, and therefore should not trigger an 1

extensive evaluation under NEPA. 2

3 Comparable CATEXs 4

5
USCG CATEX 6

7 (L15) Real property inspections for complian ce with deed or easement restrictions. 8

9 Benchmarking Other Agency Experience 10

11 Other Federal agencies also have CATEXs for this type of action, which serve as 12 additional support for the proposed new DHS CATEX. For example, GSA has 13 considerable experience with a variety of real property management activities, such as 14 property inspection, leasing, licen sing, selling, and disposal. GSA has determined that 15 many activities related to real property management do not have the potential to 16 significantly impact the human environment. GSA also determined that many of these 17 activities qualify for an “automatic” CA TEX, and do not require additional 18

documentation. 19

20 DHS considered the following CA TEX from GSA in its analysis: 21

22 Real property inspections for co mpliance with deed restrictions . (References: GSA 23 Order ADM 1095.1F (Environmental Considerations in Decisionmaking); GSA PBS 24 NEPA Desk Guide (October 1999); Fed. Reg., Vol. 63, No. 123, June 26, 1998). 25

2614 

## PROPOSED NEW CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS FOR 1 

## FEDERAL ASSISTANCE ACTIVITIES 2

3 The following CATEXs (N1 through N19 ) ar e proposed new CATEXs that would be 4 available for use by any DHS Component for application to a variety of actitivties 5 undertaken by non-DHS entities us ing Federal assistance. 6

7 Proposed text: N1 Administrative Actions Associated with Grants 8 Management. 

### Actions related to grant admi nistration performed at any 9 

### stage during the grants lifecycle, su ch as the development and issuance 10 

### of grant guidance; announ cements of availability of funds; project reviews 11 

### for program eligibility; provision of technical assistance; conducting 12 

### inspections, financial audits, and m onitoring activities; development of 13 

### information technology systems for grants management; grant close-out 14 

### activities; and actions taken in situatio ns where a grantee or subgrantee is 15 

### in non-conformance with grant program requirements, such as 16 

### disallowances, recoupment of funds, and debarment. 17

18 Rationale and Support for CATEX 19

20 Historically, two existing FEMA CATEXs have been applied to FEMA grants 21 management activities. Existing FEMA CATEX (i) is for administrative activities, such 22 as travel, procurement, personnel actions, et c. Existing FEMA CATEX (ii) has been 23 used for many activities rela ted to the preparation, revi sion, and adoption of grant 24 guidance documents and regulations. Exis ting DHS CATEXs are also applicable to 25 grants management activities. Existing DHS CATEXs (A1) and (A3) are very similar to 26 existing FEMA CATEXs (i) and (ii); they cover administrative activities and the 27 preparation of guidance documents respect ively. In addition, existing DHS CATEX 28 (G2) covers grants for exerci ses to test the readiness of the nation to prevent or respond 29

to a terrorist attack or a natural or manmade disaster. 30

31 A variety of administrative and technical assi stance activities are ne cessary in order for 32 Federal agencies to effectively and effi ciently manage and implement their grant 33 programs. DHS has determined, particularly through the extensive e xperience of FEMA, 34 that these types of activities do not have th e potential to significantly impact the quality 35 of the human environment. Through an evaluation of the existing FEMA and DHS 36 CATEXs regularly applied to grants manageme nt activities, DHS also determined that 37 the existing CATEXs do not cover the wide range and types of grants management 38 activities performed in the Department and do not take advantage of FEMA’s extensive 39 experience in this area. Therefore, DHS is proposing this new CATEX that would 40 encompass the comprehensive suite of grants management activities throughout the full 41 grants lifecycle. 42

43 Comparable CATEXs 44

4515 FEMA CATEXs 1

2 (i) Administrative actions such as personne l actions, travel, procurement of supplies, 3 etc., in support of normal day-to-day activ ities and disaster related activities. 4

5 (ii) Preparation, revision, and adoption of regulations, directives, manuals, and other 6 guidance documents related to actions t hat qualify for categorical exclusions. 7

8
DHS CATEXs 9

10 (A1) Personnel, fiscal, management, and adminis trative activities, such as recruiting, 11 processing, paying, recordkeeping, resource management, budgeting, personnel actions, 12

and travel. 13

14 (A3) Promulgation of rules, issuance of ru lings or interpretations, and the development 15 and publication of policies, orders, directiv es, notices, procedures, manuals, advisory 16 circulars, and other guidance documents of th e following nature: (a) Those of a strictly 17 administrative or procedural nature; (b) Those that impl ement, without substantive 18 change, statutory or regulatory requiremen ts; (c) Those that implement, without 19 substantive change, procedures, manuals, and other guidance documents; (d) Those that 20 interpret or amend an existing regulation w ithout changing its envir onmental effect; (e) 21 Technical guidance on safety and security ma tters; or, (f) Guidance for the preparation 22 of security plans. 23

24 (G2) Projects, grants, cooperative agreem ents, contracts, or activities to design, 25 develop, and conduct national, state, local, or international exercises to test the 26 readiness of the nation to prevent or respond to a terrorist attack or a natural or 27

manmade disaster and where conducted in acco rdance with existing facility or land use 28 designations. This exclusion does not apply to ex ercises that involve the use of chemical, 29 biological, radiological, nuclear, or explosi ve agents/devices (other than small devices 30 such as practice grenades/flash bang devices used to simulate an attack during exercise 31 play). 32

33 Proposed text: *N2 Federal Assistance for Facility Repair. Federal 34 assistance for the repair of structures and facilities in a manner that conforms to 35 pre-existing design, function, location, and land use

. This CATEX does not 36 apply to work within or affecting the follo wing: streams; stream banks; seaward 37
of the limit of moderate wave action (LiMWA) (a line mapped to delineate the 38 inland extent of wave height s of 1.5 feet); or the V zone (areas expected to be 39 affected by wave impact of 3 feet or mo re in height, in a 100-year flood event) if 40
the LiMWA has not been identified. This CATEX covers the temporary staging 41 and use of equipment and vehicles to carr y out the proposed repair actions as 42 long as best management practices are put in place to control noise, water, and 43 air pollution. 44

45 Rationale and Support for CATEX 4616 DHS, primarily through FEMA, routinely approv es actions of a similar nature, scope, 1 and intensity to those proposed in this new CATEX. When funded under FEMA’s 2 Public Assistance program, these actions ar e covered by a statutory exemption from 3 NEPA as an action returning a facility to its pre-disaster c ondition as long as it 4 substantially conforms to the pre-existi ng design, function, and location. When the 5 repair action is taken under a program other than Public Assistance, FEMA has applied 6 its existing CATEX (xv). The proposed CATEX is derived from existing FEMA 7 CATEX (xv), but covers repair activities only and does not ap ply to such activities when 8 they would be located in certain environmenta lly sensitive areas. Repair activities that 9

are connected or combined with other acti ons that go beyond the indicated parameters 10 (i.e. pre-existing design, func tion, and location) would not be covered under this 11

CATEX. 12

13 Most DHS assistance for repair and maintena nce activities comes from FEMA’s role in 14 disaster assistance providing grants to st ate and local governments and communities in 15 preparation for and response to disasters. FEMA’s extenstive experience has shown that 16 these actions do not normally have the poten tial for individually or cumulatively 17 significant environmental impacts. 18

19 For the purposes of this proposed CATEX, a f acility is anything manmade that provides 20 a service, and a structure is a walled and roof ed facility. “[I]n a manner that conforms to 21 pre-existing...” is intend ed to mean that the repair would return the facility or structure 22 to its form prior to DHS’s involvement (i.e., prior to an incident that resulted in a 23 Federal disaster or emergency declaration and application for Fe deral assistance). 24 “Design, function, and location” are qualifie rs for this CATEX intended to limit the 25 proposed repair activity to pre-existing land use(s). Th is CATEX would not cover 26 expansion of the footprint beyond the footprint of the original facil ity, activities that 27 would result in the removal of native vegeta tion, or substantial ground disturbance. The 28 CATEX would cover the temporar y staging and use of equipm ent and vehicles to carry 29 out the proposed repair actions as long as extraordinary circumstances are evaluated, any 30

conditions that result from the environmenta l review are met, and best management 31 practices are put in place to control po llution (e.g. noise, stormwater runoff, air 32 pollution, dust, energy, and waste). 33

34 This proposed CATEX intentionally does not co ver activities involving repair in stream 35 banks. FEMA NEPA practitione rs have found over the years that the availability of a 36 statutory exemption from NEPA under S ection 316 of the Stafford Act and the 37 availability of a repair CATEX may enc ourage stream bank hardening and stream 38 crossing repair practices that are detrimental to fish and species habitat or that may not 39 take full advantage of hazard mitigation measures that would reduce the potential for 40 future damage and the impacts on fish habita t. The availability of the repair CATEX 41 and statutory exemption may encourage a pplicants for FEMA assistance to pursue 42 stream bank repair practices that are harmful to these resources in order to restore their 43 communities quicker because engaging in more thoughtful stream bank repair projects 44 may trigger a higher level of NEPA analys is (e.g., EA). DHS is proposing a new 4517 separate CATEX (N4*) that specifically addresses repairs in streams to eliminate this 1

disincentive. 2

3 Since 2008, FEMA has been mapping the la ndward limit of the area subject the 4 moderate wave action or LiMWA (i.e., the area that is potentially subject to action from 5 waves of 1.5 feet or more during the one -percent-annual-chance flood in any given 6 year). If a LiMWA has not been identified, then the DHS reviewer should use the V 7 zone in a FEMA FIRM. Repairs in these areas would not be covered by this CATEX; 8 rather, DHS is proposing a new separate CA TEX (N5*) for actions in these coastal 9

areas. 10

11 It is important to note that for FEMA repa ir actions under Section 406 of the Stafford 12 Act (Public Assistance) in streams and ar eas subject to moderate wave action, the 13 statutory exemption is still applicable. 14

15 Application of this CATEX to a proposed action would require a REC to document 16 alignment with the scope of the CATEX, ev aluation of extraordinary circumstances, and 17 compliance with other EP&HP requirements. Typically, the issues that DHS encounters 18 with repair actions are rela ted to other EP&HP compliance requirements such as NHPA 19 Section 106, ESA Section 7, a nd EO 11988, among others. 20

21 Comparable CATEXs 22

23
FEMA CATEX 24

25 (xv) Repair, reconstruction, restoration, elevation, retrof itting, upgrading to current 26 codes and standards, or replacement of any fa cility in a manner that substantially 27 conforms to the preexisting design, function, and location. 28

29
DHS CATEX 30

31 (D3) Repair and maintenance of Departme nt-managed buildings, roads, airfields, 32 grounds, equipment, and other fa cilities which do not result in a change in functional 33 use or an impact on a historically significant element or setting (e.g. replacing a roof, 34 painting a building, resurfacing a road or runway , pest control activities, restoration of 35 trails and firebreaks, culvert maintenance, grounds maintenance, existing security 36 systems, and maintenance of waterfront fa cilities that does no t require individual 37 regulatory permits). 38

39 Proposed text: * N3 Federal Assistance for Property Acquisition and 40

Demolition. Federal assistance for the acqu isition of properties and the 41 associated demolition and removal when the acquisition is from a willing seller, 42 the assistance is solely for the purpos es of financial compensation for the 43 acquisition, and the land is deed restricted to open space, recreational, wildlife 44 habitat, or wetland uses in perpetuity. This CATEX covers actions associated 45 with the determination of pr ogram eligibility. Th is CATEX does not cover 4618 Federal assistance actions that invo lve acquisition for the purpose of 1 construction or development at a site in the acquired pro perty. The use of 2 eminent domain is explicitly excluded from the CATEX. 3

4 Rationale and Support for CATEX 5

6 DHS, through FEMA, routinely approves acti ons of a similar nature, scope, and 7 intensity as those in this proposed ne w CATEX, and has applied existing FEMA 8 CATEX (vii) to such actions. FEMA enga ges in the acquisition of structures and 9 facilities subject to hazards and the associated removal of those structures through 10 demolition where the intent of the projec t is to eliminate the hazard by removing 11 occupants and structures. In addition to th e acquisition of property, this includes the 12 removal of structures (intact or demolished) from acquire d property. Projects include 13 those funded under the Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) programs (i.e. Hazard 14 Mitigation Grant Program [HMGP], Flood Mitig ation Assistance [FMA], Pre-Disaster 15 Mitigation [PDM], Severe Repetitive Loss [SRL], and Repetitive Flood Claims [RFC] 16 grant programs). These programs fund the acq uisition (or buy-out) of properties, their 17 removal, and actions to turn the property to open space in perpetuity in accordance with 18 requirements of Section 404 of the Stafford Act and FEMA regulations at 44 CFR Part 19 80 (Property Acquisition and Relocation fo r Open Space). The proposed CATEX would 20 also cover projects under other DHS grant pr ograms as long as they meet the same 21 conditions applicable to the HMA program s (i.e., willing seller and open-space deed 22 restriction). The category does not include development of a s ite in the acquired 23 property. Actions that involve acquisi tion for the purpose of construction or 24 development of other projects would be ev aluated under other CA TEXs that cover the 25 subsequent actions or in more extensive NE PA analyses (i.e. EA, EIS) if there is no 26 applicable CATEX. The use of eminent domain is explicitly excluded from this 27

CATEX. 28

29 When DHS, through FEMA’s hazard mitigati on grant programs, provides funds for the 30 property acquisitions contemplated under th is proposed CATEX, the purpose of the 31 funding is solely to acquire the property and compensate the landowner for the buyout. 32 DHS does not have any discretion or ability to place conditions on the future use of the 33 funds once they have been transferred to the landowner and wher e demolition and deed 34 restriction of the eligible pr operty will be accomplished. 35

36 The proposed CATEX would c over actions associated w ith the determination of 37 program eligibility such as performance of phase I envir onmental site assessments under 38 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agen cy’s “all appropriate inquiries” rule, 39

identification and evaluation efforts for histor ic properties, minor invasive survey and 40 field work, and inspection actions. 41

42 Application of this CATEX to a proposed action would require a REC to document 43 alignment with the scope of the CATEX, ev aluation of extraordinary circumstances, and 44 compliance with other EP&HP requirements. Typically, the issues that DHS encounters 4519 with acquisition/demolition actions are related to other EP&HP compliance 1 requirements such as NHPA Section 106, ESA Section 7, and EO 11988, among others. 2

3 Comparable FEMA CATEX 4

5 (vii) The acquisition of properties and the a ssociated demolition/ removal [see (xii)] or 6 relocation of structures [see (xiii)] under any applicable authority when acquisition is 7 from a willing seller, the buyer coordinat ed acquisition planning with affected 8 authorities, and the acquired property will be dedicated in perpetuity to uses that are 9 compatible with open space, recr eational, or wetland practices. 10

11 Proposed text: * N4 Federal Assistance for Actions Involving Stream Work 12 and Modification and Floodways. Federal assistance for repair and 13 restoration actions, hazard mitigation acti ons other than flood control, or the new 14
construction of facilities that are f unctionally dependent or facilitate open space 15 use, when the actions are within or affe ct regulatory floodways, streams, and 16

stream banks and that 17

18 a. Involve ground disturbanc e of less than one-half acre, 19

b. Involve stream bank work or al teration of less than 300 linear feet, 20 c. Do not involve hardening or ar moring of the stream banks unless 21 the project uses stream or stream bank bioengineering techniques, 22

d. Do not result in adverse flood risk effects to downstream 23 communities, 24 e. Do not result in any increase of flood levels within the community 25 during the occurrence of the bas e flood discharge if the action 26 takes place within the regulatory floodway, and 27 f. Where the effect of the pr oposed project when combined with 28 other existing or reasonably foreseeable development will not 29
increase water surface elevati on of the base flood more than one 30 foot at any point within the community if it the action takes place in 31 a floodplain with no regulatory floodway. 32

33 Rationale and Support for CATEX 34

35 This proposed new CATEX is derived from existing FEMA CATEXs (xv) and (xvi) and 36 existing DHS CATEXs (D5) and (D6). When conditions a-f listed in the CATEX are 37 met, DHS has determined through its experience that it is appropriate to categorically 38 exclude these activities from a higher leve l of NEPA analysis because they do not 39 normally have the potential to result in individually or cumulatively significant 40 environmental impacts. 41

42 This proposed CATEX covers actions affecting streams such as improvements within 43 stream banks, repair of stream crossings (bri dges, culverts), and ac tions to protect banks 44

from scour and erosion. The limitations associ ated with ground dist urbance of less than 45

one-half acre and stream bank work of less than 300 linear feet are inte nded to be similar 46 to thresholds established by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the Nationwide 4720 Permit Program under Section 404 of the Cl ean Water Act. The intent behind 1 limitations (d) through (f) is to incorp orate Executive Order 11988 – Floodplain 2 Management considerations into the CATEX. These limitations ensure that DHS is not 3 encouraging practices that would be inconsistent with floodplain management 4 requirements of National Flood Insurance Prog ram (NFIP) participating communities. 5 Under the NFIP, participating communities can allow development that does not meet 6 limitations (e) and (f) as long as a Cond itional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) is 7 requested and approved by FEMA. An activity that does not meet limitations (e) and (f) 8 but for which a CLOMR is sought and obtained would require an EA prior to issuance 9

of the CLOMR. 10

11 FEMA NEPA practitioners have found over the years that the availability of a statutory 12 exemption from NEPA under Sect ion 316 of the Stafford Act and the availability of a 13 repair CATEX may encourage stream bank hardening and stream crossing repair 14 practices that are detrimental to fish and species habitat or that may not take full 15 advantage of hazard mitigation measures that would reduce the potential for future 16 damage and the impacts on fish habitat. DHS is concerned about federal assistance 17 applicants pursuing stream bank repair pract ices that could be harmful to natural 18

resources in order to restore their communitie s more quickly rather than engaging in the 19 development of more thoughtful stream bank re pair projects that could trigger a more 20 extensive NEPA analysis. This proposed CA TEX addresses this concern by encouraging 21 practices that improve environmental quality and wildlife habitat, and mitigate the 22 impacts of future floods. 23

24 The term “bioengineering,” as used in this CATEX, means the use of a combination of 25 biological, mechanical, and ecological concep ts to control erosion and stabilize soil 26 through the sole use of vege tation or a combination of vegetation and construction 27

materials. Another similar definition is the use of living and non- living plant materials 28 in combination with natural and synthetic support materials for slope stabilization, 29 erosion reduction, and vegetative establishm ent. The methods should emulate natural 30 conditions or processes. Non- bioengineering measures that involve hardening of banks, 31 such as the placement of rip-ra p and steel sheet piles, are not covered by this proposed 32 CATEX and would require prepar ation of an EA or EIS. 33

34

DHS is aware that extraordin ary circumstances in stream modification activities could 35 arise and necessitate a higher le vel of NEPA analysis. For th is reason, the application of 36 this CATEX to any proposed stream modifi cation activity or action within a stream 37 would require a REC to document alignment with the scope of the CATEX, evaluation 38 of extraordinary circumstances, and complia nce with other EP&HP requirements. 39

40 Comparable CATEXs 41

42
FEMA CATEXs 43

4421 (xv) Repair, reconstruction, restoration, elevation, retrof itting, upgrading to current 1 codes and standards, or replacement of any fa cility in a manner that substantially 2 conforms to the preexisting design, function, and location. 3

4 (xvi) Improvements to exis ting facilities and the constr uction of small scale hazard 5 mitigation measures in existing develope d areas with substantially completed 6 infrastructure, when the immediate project area has already been disturbed, and when 7 those actions do not alter basic functions , do not exceed capacity of other system 8 components, or modify intended land use; provided the operation of the completed 9 project will not, of itself, have an adverse effect on the quality of the human 10

environment. 11

12
DHS CATEXs 13

14 (D5) Maintenance dredging activities within waterways, floodplains, and wetlands 15 where no new depths are required, applicab le permits are secured, and associated 16 debris disposal is done at an approved dispos al site. This CATEX encompasses activities 17 required for the maintenance of waterfront facilities manage d primarily within the U.S. 18

Coast Guard and Customs and Border Protection. 19

20 (D6) Maintenance of aquatic and riparian habitat in streams and ponds, using native 21 materials or best natural resource management practices. Examples include, but are not 22 limited to: (a) Installing or repairing gabi ons with stone from a nearby source,(b) 23 Adding brush for fish habitat, (c) Stabilizing stream banks through bioengineering 24 techniques, and (d) Removing and controlling exotic vegetati on, not including the use of 25 herbicides or non-native biological controls. 26

27 Supporting EAs 28

29 Lawton Interceptor Protection, City of Reno, Nevada, September 2010. 30 ( http://www.fema.gov/libr ary/viewRecord.do?id=4344 ) 31

32 As a result of flooding in 1997 and duri ng the 2005–2006 wet season, the Truckee River 33 migrated as much as 80 feet north from its typical wetted channel location. The risk of 34 further migration of the river and bank er osion was high. The Lawton Interceptor, a 35 sanitary sewer line located approximately 200 feet from the edge of the current river 36 channel, could be compromised by further mi gration of the river and by bank erosion. 37 The proposed project would reduce the potenti al for sewer rupture. Approximately 150 38

feet of the northern bank of the river would be stabilized using current bioengineering 39

methods. The stabilization methods were selected by the City with input from both U.S. 40

Fish and Wildlife Service and the Nevada Department of Wildlife. 41

42

The stabilization would include installing root wads at an angle along the river bank to 43

deflect stream flows. Root wa ds are lengths of downed trees that include the root wad 44 and a portion of the trunk. The trunk portion of the root wad woul d be approximately 20 45 feet long and 2 feet in diameter, and the ro ot mass would be approximately 6 feet in 4622 diameter. Installation would include buryi ng approximately forty 24- to 30-inch1

diameter ballast rocks to anchor the root wa ds, which would be anchored with a stainless 2

steel aircraft cable. 3

4

Trees for the root wads would be obtaine d locally. Willow plantings would also be 5 installed along the bank by excav ating to a depth at which th e roots would be sitting in 6 the water to ensure that the willow pl antings would establish and provide bank 7

stabilization. 8

9 Findings: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been conclude d that the proposed 10 project will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and no further 11 NEPA analysis (i.e. Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 12

13

Franklin Branch Stream Stabilizatio n, Oakland County, Michigan, July 2003. 14 ( http://www.fema.gov/libr ary/viewRecord.do?id=1978 ) 15

16 Bloomfield Township, Michigan applied for HMGP funding to reduce or prevent 17 damages to residential structur es located along the Franklin Branch of the Rouge River. 18 The need for the project was to address th e potential for severe erosion and address 19

downstream sedimentation issues. 20

21 The proposed action for streambank stabi lization included channel stabilization 22 techniques modeled after natu ral features found in streams such as placement of 23

artificial riffle cons isting of fieldstone and smalle r cobbles behind a 1-foot trench, 24 boulder cross vanes, and other boulders strate gically placed within the stream. Bank 25 armoring included rootwad revetments, brush mattress (dogwood and willow), and 26 establishment of point bar vegetation using native species. The last component involved 27 floodplain terracing that was covered with a mixture native woody and herbaceous 28 species. This proposal contained portions wh ere rip-rap and steel sheet and pilings were 29

used. 30

31 Findings: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been conclude d that the proposed 32 project will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and no further 33 NEPA analysis (i.e. Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 34

35 Fleshman Creek Flood Mitigation Projec t, Livingston, Montana, April 2010. 36 ( http://www.fema.gov/media-lib rary/assets/documents/91546 ) 37

38 The proposed action would upgrade culverts at six street/road crossings; install 39 hydrodynamic separators at storm water outf alls to enhance gravity separation of 40 suspended storm water pollutants; enhance, create, or modify wetlands along the creek 41 channel; and increase the sinuosity of the cr eek. The project would also include channel 42 augmentations, bank stabilization and revege tation, and relocation of utilities. The 43 proposed action would incorporat e the strategic use of coir (coconut) fabric to allow for 44 creation of steeper bank angles and critical cover features. After channel alterations are 45 complete, the project would also incorporate other bank stabilization/erosion prevention 4623 methods, such as Best Manage ment Practices (BMPs), and would revegetate disturbed 1 area with native plants to reduce sediment loads in the creek. 2

3 Findings: Based upon agency comments and the results of the EA, it has been 4 concluded that the proposed project will not significantly affect the quality of the human 5 environment, and no further NEPA analysis (i.e. Environmental Impact Statement) is 6

warranted. 7

8 Midway Creek Fish Culvert and Road Abandonment Project, Cowlitz County, 9 Washington, October 2011. ( http://www.fema.gov/libra ry/viewRecord.do?id=4945 ) 10

11 The Washington State Department of Natural Resources applied for Public Assistance 12 funding to install a fish-passable culvert in Midway Creek, remove existing culverts, and 13 abandon a small segment of road. The new cu lvert would be sized appropriately using 14 the Washington Department of Fish a nd Wildlife (WDFW) Fish Passage, Design 15 Guidance and Standards (WDFW 2011a). The project would also abandon 955 feet of 16 the E-4310 Road, removing two culverts that ha ve been identified as barriers to fish 17 passage. The project would include: On E4310 Road - removal of three culverts, road 18 abandonment and revegetation with native ground cover; and on E4300 Road - road 19 improvement (new surfacing and addition of drainage structures), a temporary bypass to 20 divert flow around the work area, and installa tion of the culvert (12- foot diameter metal 21 culvert to ensure fish passage). Channel restoration would take place on both roads. 22

23 Findings: Based upon agency comments and the results of the EA, it has been 24 concluded that the proposed project will not significantly affect the quality of the human 25 environment, and no further NEPA analysis (i.e. Environmental Impact Statement) is 26

warranted. 27

28 Proposed text: * N5 Federal Assistance for Actions in Coastal Areas 29 Subject to Moderate Wave Action or V Zones. 

### Federal assistance for 30 

### repair, hazard mitigation, new constructi on, or restoration actions of less 31 

### than one-half acre within the following areas: areas seaward of the limit of 32 

### moderate wave action (LiMWA) (a li ne mapped to delineate the inland 33 

### extent of wave heights of 1.5 feet) during the base flood (an area that has 34 

### at least a one-percent chance of be ing flooded in any given year); or 35 

### areas within the V zone (a coastal ar ea where there is a velocity hazard 36 

### due to wave action) if the LiMWA ha s not been establis hed. The actions 37 

### must meet the following criteria: 38

39

a. They are consistent with the Stat e or Tribe enforceable policies of 40 approved coastal management programs, 41

b. They are not within or affect a Coas tal Barrier Resource System unit, 42 c. They do not result in m an-made alterations of sand dunes, 43

d. They do not result in the permanent removal of vegetation (including 44 mangrove stands, wetlands, and dune vegetation), 4524 e. Applicable Federal requirements and local codes and standards are 1 followed, and 2 f. If they involve substantial im provement or new construction of 3 structures, the struct ure is elevated in open works (e.g. piles and 4 columns) as opposed to fill in a manner that the bottom lowest 5

horizontal structural member is at or above the base flood level, the 6
foundation is anchored to resist flotation, collapse, and lateral 7
movement due to the effects of wi nd and water loads, and the siting of 8 the project conforms to applicable State, Tribe, or local setback 9 requirements. 10

11 Examples of activities covered by this CATEX include but are not limited to: the 12 repair and elevation of stru ctures; repair and new construction of jetties and 13 groins; the repair, hazar d mitigation, and new cons truction of functionally 14 dependent facilities such as piers, ma rinas, boat ramps, bathrooms, and port 15 facility structures; and beach restoration proj ects except projects that result in 16
the man-made alteration of dunes and wetlands such as beach nourishment 17 projects. 18

19 Rationale and Support for CATEX 20

21

This is a new CATEX derived from FEMA’s existing CATEXs (xv) and (xvi), which 22 cover repair, restoration, and mitigation ac tivities. Based on its evaluation of the 23 existing FEMA CATEXs and FEMA’s experi ence evaluating potential environmental 24 impacts of numerous proposed hazard mitigati on and disaster recovery grant projects in 25 coastal areas, DHS identified the need to develop a CATEX specifically for actions 26 located in coastal areas because of the unique environmental values and flood risks that 27

are inherent in these areas. 28

29 FEMA policies and procedures for identif ying and mapping flood hazards are based on 30 building science research that demonstrates that design and cons truction requirements 31 and performance of buildings in these area s are of significant concern. For example, 32 FEMA has been mapping the landward limit of the area subject to moderate wave action 33 or LiMWA (i.e., the area that is potentially subject to action from waves of 1.5 feet or 34 more during the one-percent-annual-chance fl ood in any given year) since 2008. In 35 addition, national and international constr uction consensus standards such as the 36 American Society of Civil Engineers (ASC E) and the Interna tional Building Codes 37 (IBC) (see http://www.asce.org and http://www.iccsafe.org ) have recognized special 38 standards to address coastal construction practices in these areas. 39

40 This proposed CATEX covers actions that occur in those coasta l areas subject to 41 moderate wave action. It app lies to actions such as repair and elevation of structures; 42 repair and new construction of jetties and groins; the repair, hazard mitigation, and new 43 construction of functionally depe ndent facilities such as pi ers, marinas, boat ramps, 44 bathrooms, and port facility structures; and beach restoration projects except projects 45

that result in the man-made alteration of dunes and wetlands such as beach nourishment. 4625 Activities that result in ground disturbance of more than 1⁄2 acre would require a higher 1 level of NEPA analysis (an EA at minimu m) that would identify alternatives and 2 minimization measures, and provide for public involvement. The 1⁄2 acre was developed 3

as a threshold to limit the amount of disturba nce that occurs in coastal areas. This 4 acreage limitation balances the goals to disc ourage development in floodplains (EO 5 11988), discourage activities that would aff ect the Nation’s coastal environment (EO 6 13547), and meet the DHS mission of assis ting in the preparat ion, recovery, and 7 mitigation of communities to make them mo re resilient. The limitations are also 8 intended to incorporate considerations asso ciated with the Coastal Zone Management 9 Act (CZMA) and the Coastal Ba rrier Resources Act (CBRA). 10

11 Application of this CATEX to a proposed action would require a REC to document 12 alignment with the scope of the CATEX, ev aluation of extraordin ary circumstances, and 13 compliance with other EP&HP requirements. Typically, the issues that DHS encounters 14

with actions in coastal areas are related to other EP&HP compliance requirements such 15 as NHPA Section 106, ESA Section 7, EO 11988, CZMA, and CBRA. 16

17 Comparable FEMA CATEXs 18

19 (xv) Repair, reconstruction, restoration, elevation, retrof itting, upgrading to current 20 codes and standards, or replacement of any fa cility in a manner that substantially 21 conforms to the preexisting design, function, and location. 22

23 (xvi) Improvements to exis ting facilities and the constr uction of small scale hazard 24 mitigation measures in existing develope d areas with substantially completed 25 infrastructure, when the immediate project area has already been disturbed, and when 26 those actions do not alter basic functions , do not exceed capacity of other system 27 components, or modify intended land use; provided the operation of the completed 28 project will not, of itself, have an adverse effect on the quality of the human 29

environment. 30

31 Supporting EAs 32

33 Johnson Bayou Fire Station/ Waterworks Di strict Building Relocation, Louisiana, 34 October 2011. ( http://www.fema.gov/libra ry/viewRecord.do?id=4865 ) 35

36 The proposed action by FEMA is to provide f unding to assist with the relocation of a 37

fire station that was dama ged by Hurricane Rita in 2005. 38 The proposed replacement action is for cons truction of a combined Fire Station and 39 Waterworks facility at a site approximately one mile southeas t of the original location in 40 the unincorporated community of Johnson Bayou. The applicant designed the 41 replacement facility to incorporate the hurri cane damaged facilities, the Fire Station and 42 the Waterworks. The facility would include 6,600 square feet, an increase in square 43 footage due to required and re levant codes and standards. 44

4526 The proposed design consists of a 6,600 square foot facility that would be built to 1

current codes and standards for Coasta l High Hazard A Zones including the 2 International Building Code of 2006 and its referenced American Society of Civil 3 Engineering 24-05 Standard, Flood Resistant Design and Construction. Additionally, 4 the building will be elevated as required to the established design flood elevation using 5 concrete columns including a concrete slab-on-grade with turned down perimeter beams 6 for scouring mitigation. Other structural co mponents include an elevated first floor 7 consisting of a cast-in-place concrete floor sl ab and beams, a structural steel building 8 frame for supporting pre-engine ered steel wall systems a nd roof trusses, diagonal 9 bracing, and an elevator with a concrete shaft. The pr oposed project requires site 10 grading including the addition of non-structural fill (1 foot or less over approximately 1⁄2 11 acre). There is existing access to the needed utilities. 12

13 Findings: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been conclude d that the proposed 14 project will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and no further 15 NEPA analysis (i.e. Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 16

17 Regional Marine Security Center , Sabine Pass, Texas, April 2011. 18 ( http://www.fema.gov/libr ary/viewRecord.do?id=4661 ). 19

20 Jefferson County, Texas (Jefferson County) need s to improve security along the Sabine 21 Pass Waterway by enhancing the capabilities of the Sabine Pass Port Authority complex. 22 The ultimate goal is to be able to achieve the mission of providing 24-hour law 23 enforcement presence on area waterways. 24

25 The Proposed Action Alternative is the constr uction of a new Regional Marine Security 26

Center within the Sabine Pass Port Authorit y complex in Sabine Pass, Jefferson County 27 (Latitude: 29.73635, Longitude: -93.88345). The proposed project area is a vacant lot 28 within the Sabine Pass Port Authority comp lex and has been previously graded and 29 disturbed. A modern port build ing is located to the east of the proposed site. The 30 Proposed Action Alternative wi ll include the constr uction of a 3,200 square foot marine 31 security building and an unpaved parking area on the site. An exis ting boat slip will be 32 improved by replacing the current wood bulkhead s with steel. Additionally, a covered 33 dock with seven (7) in-water slips and finge r piers will be constructed, complete with 34 lifts and shore power stations. The new f acilities will be connected to existing sewer 35 and utility systems in the area, and this work will be conducted within the property 36 limits of the project site. With the construc tion of the facilities and parking area, the 37 total projected disturbance area will be less than 1.0 acre. Figure 1 maps the elements 38 of the Proposed Action Alternative. 39 Findings: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been conclude d that the proposed 40 project will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and no further 41 NEPA analysis (i.e. Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 42

43 Security Operations Control Center F acility, Albany County, New York, November 44 2011. ( http://www.fema.gov/libra ry/viewRecord.do?id=4904 ) 45

4627 New York State has recently increased its interest in revitalizing the Erie and Champlain 1 Canal Systems for moving commercial products via water. Recent improvements such 2 as replacing wharfs, extending rail lines and expanding heavy lift equipment has resulted 3 in an increased amount and variety of cargo a rriving at and leaving the Port of Albany. 4 Increased cargo movement increases the potentia l of a security breach at the port as well 5 as surrounding geographical areas, thus it is critical to upg rade the existing security 6 operations to protect the port and surrounding communities. 7

8 The scope of work for the proposed project would include demolition of two pre9 fabricated metal buildings, and movement or demolition of two trailer/modular office 10 spaces to clear the site for construction of a new 40’ x 100’ building to house the 11 Security Operations Control Center. The bu ilding would be located at the main entrance 12 to the Port of Albany terminal and would re place the existing securi ty trailer that is 13 currently there for this purpose. The new f acility would connect to existing utility lines. 14 The proposed project would also include relo cation of electronic s ecurity equipment to 15 the new facility including the command cons ole, video wall comprising 6 flat panel 16 LCD monitors, Digital Video Surveillance reco rders, and access control server used to 17 manage all access control to the restricted areas of the Port of Albany. 18

19 The two metal, pre-fabricated structures we re historically used as U.S. Coastguard 20 stations. Presently, one is being utilized by the Seaman’s Ministry, an international 21 organization that cares for the personal, prof essional, and spiritual needs of mariners. 22 The Seaman’s Ministry operation would be relocated to another facility. 23

24 Findings: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been conclude d that the proposed 25 project will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and no further 26 NEPA analysis (i.e. Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 27

28 Proposed text: * N6 Federal Assistance for Relocation/Realignment of 29
Structures and Facilities. Federal assistance for relocation of structures and 30 facilities, including the realignment of li near facilities that are part of a bigger 31 system, when they do not involve ground disturbance of more than one acre. 32 This category does not apply to the follo wing: actions that involve hardening or 33 armoring of stream banks, unless they use stream or stream bank 34 bioengineering techniques; realignment acti ons affecting a regulatory floodway if 35 they result in any increase in flood levels during the base flood discharge; or 36 actions occurring seaward of the limit of moderate wave action (or within V 37
zones when the limit of moderate wave action has not been identified)

. 38

39 Rational and Support for CATEX 40

41

The relocation of structures and facilities from one site to another site, including the 42 realignment of roads and utilities, is an activity frequently funded by DHS through 43 FEMA’s grant programs. This category of ac tions has been the source of an extensive 44 number of EAs within FEMA, where the relo cation occurs in both previously disturbed 45 and previously undeveloped areas. This pr oposed CATEX addresses both scenarios. 4628 This proposed CATEX covers relocation of structures and faci lities under any DHS 1 Federal assistance authority, such as FEMA’s HMA grant programs and Public 2 Assistance. While this proposed CATEX could be used under any DHS Federal 3 assistance program, most of the projects an ticipated to be covered under the proposed 4 CATEX are hazard mitigation projects. Relo cation as used in this CATEX means both 5 the physical relocation of a facility as well as the demolition of a facility and 6

construction of the same function in a new area. It also covers the relocation and 7 realignment of linear features such as road s, trails, and utility lines. The action may 8 occur in undeveloped or undisturbed areas but ground disturbance and construction 9

activities must be limited to less than one acre. The one acre limitation is consistent 10 with the proposed CATEX (*N8) for new cons truction in previously undeveloped areas. 11

This limitation is based on the need for st ormwater pollution prevention permits for 12

construction activities of more than one acre under the Clean Water Act. For 13 construction activities of more than one acre, preparation of an EA or EIS would be 14 required in order to give appropriate consideration to alternatives and public 15

involvement. 16

17 Relocation or realignment actions in areas subject to moderate wave action are not 18 meant to be covered by this CATEX. They may be covered by the separate CATEX 19 specifically applicable to t hose areas if the ac tion meets the conditions established 20

therein. 21

22 Realignment of roads and linear features can sometimes affect streams and their banks. 23

This CATEX is not intended to cover such ac tions unless the applicant uses stream or 24 stream bank bioengineering techniques. This is intended to be consistent with the 25 proposed new CATEX (*N4) for actions affecting streams and stream banks. The 26 limitation of realignment actions in regulatory floodways, if they re sult in any increase 27 in flood levels during the base flood discharg e, is meant to ensure that DHS is not 28 encouraging practices that would be inconsistent with floodplain management 29 requirements of NFIP participating comm unities. Under the NFIP, participating 30 communities can allow development that results in an increase in flood levels as long as 31 a CLOMR is requested and approved by FEMA. Realignment actions that do not meet 32

the restriction but for which a CLOMR is sought and obtained w ould require an EA. 33

34 Application of this CATEX to a proposed action would require a REC to document 35 alignment with the scope of the CATEX, ev aluation of extraordin ary circumstances, and 36 compliance with other EP&HP requirements. Typically, the issues that DHS encounters 37 with realignment/relocation actions are related to other EP&HP compliance 38 requirements such as NHPA Section 106, ESA S ection 7, and EO 11988, among others. 39

40 Comparable FEMA CATEXs 41

42 (xiii) Physical relocation of individual structures where FEMA has no involvement in 43 the relocation site selection or development. 44

4529 (ix) Acquisition, installation, or operation of utility and communication systems that use 1 existing distribution systems or facilities, or currently used infrastructure rights-of-way. 2

3 (xv) Repair, reconstruction, restoration, elevation, retrof itting, upgrading to current 4 codes and standards, or replacement of any fa cility in a manner that substantially 5 conforms to the preexisting design, function, and location. 6

7 (xvi) Improvements to exis ting facilities and the constr uction of small scale hazard 8 mitigation measures in existing develope d areas with substantially completed 9 infrastructure, when the immediate project area has already been disturbed, and when 10 those actions do not alter basic functions , do not exceed capacity of other system 11 components, or modify intended land use; provided the operation of the completed 12 project will not, of itself, have an adverse effect on the quality of the human 13

environment. 14

15 Supporting EAs 16

17 Taputapu Elementary School Replacement, Fagali’i, American Samoa, June 2013. 18 ( http://www.fema.gov/media-libra ry/assets/documents/32925?id=7623 ) 19

20 The Taputapu Elementary School was de stroyed by the September 2009 earthquake, 21 tsunami and flooding disaster at its original location in the village of Poloa. The 22 Proposed Action is to construct a replacem ent Taputapu Elementary School campus on a 23 site approximately 0.6 mile to the north of the pre-disaster campus, in the village of 24 Fagali’i. The proposed site is approximately 1.56 acres in area and is located at an 25 average elevation of approxima tely 285 feet above mean sea level (AMSL), outside the 26 500-year floodplain. Any replacement faciliti es will be protected from future flood 27 hazards as required by the regulations of both FEMA and the American Samoa 28 Government. The proposed site is adjacent to a paved road with conduit for utilities 29 running along the right-of-way. The Proposed Action includes the following on the 1.6- 30

acre site: 31

 a concrete playground (approxima tely 1,000 square feet); 32

 concrete walkways within the campus (approximately 2,028 square feet); 33

 a gravel driveway (approximately 1,480 square feet); 34

 a two-story classroom and administra tion building (approximately 6,272 square 35 feet); 36

 a two-story cafeteria and cl assroom building (approxima tely 1,960 square feet); 37

 a restroom building (approxima tely 450 square feet); and 38

 an unpaved parking lot (approxi mately 1,080 square feet). 39

40 The proposed site is sufficient in size to c ontain all elements of the replacement school 41 and provide flexibility for la yout configurations of the el ements within the campus. 42 Current plans are conceptual a nd the layout of the facilities within the project area may 43 vary as the construction docum entation plans are developed. 44

4530 Findings: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been conclude d that the proposed 1 project will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and no further 2 NEPA analysis (i.e. Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 3

4 Satala Operations Building Replacement, Village of Satala, Island of Tutuila, American 5 Samoa, June 2013. ( http://www.fema.gov/medialibrary/assets/documents/ 6

33001?id=7647 ) 7

8 The Proposed Action is the construction of a replacement operations building and 9 parking lot for the American Somoa Power Au thority (ASPA) Satala at its power plant 10 complex in the village of Tafuna, Tualauta County. The Satala facility was destroyed as 11 a result of the earthquake, tsunami, and flooding that occurred in September 2009. The 12 Tafuna power plant complex is approximately 0.5 mile inland and approximately 40 feet 13 higher in elevation than the Satala operati ons building site. The project site of the 14 replacement operations building and parking lot is within an area of approximately 15 13,000 SF in the southeast corner of the ASPA Tafuna power plant complex. Currently, 16 this area is used for storage of used materi als and equipment, supp lies, containers, an 17 improvised office trailer, a two sheds used for assembling materials. The two sheds 18

would be demolished and reconstructed in the western portio n of the complex. 19

20 The proposed replacement operations building is to be an approximately 13,000 SF one21 story building. Approximately 30 parking sp aces would be constructed for staff and 22 customers. The building will house several A SPA departments and include restrooms, 23 storage spaces for mechanical and electri cal equipment, and kitchens/break rooms. 24 Photovoltaic panels are being considered fo r the roof of the new building. A smaller, 25 second story is also under consideration. 26

27 Findings: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been conclude d that the proposed 28 project will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and no further 29 NEPA analysis (i.e. Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 30

31 Le’Atele Elementary School Buildings Replacement Fagasa, American Samoa, May 32 2013. ( http://www.fema.gov/media-librar y/assets/documents/32732?id=7560 ) 33

34 The Proposed Action is to repl ace three buildings at the Le’Atele Elementary School in 35 Fagasa Village that were severely da maged by the September 2009 tsunami. The 36 Le’Atele Elementary School grounds comprise approximately 2.4 acres adjacent to 37 Fagasa Bay at the western end of the vill age of Fagasa. The Proposed Action is to 38 replace the administration building, earl y childhood education (ECE) building, and 39 kitchen/cafeteria building with a two-stor y multiuse building constructed to current 40

codes and standards. The new structure would be located on a portion of what is now an 41 informal play area, an approximately 7,000-s quare-foot level field of turf grass. The 42 proposed building location woul d be southwest of and immediately adjacent to the 43 school’s existing two-stor y classroom building. 44

4531 The proposed location of the replacement building is within FEMA Flood Zone AE, 1 indicating high-risk areas with a 1 percent or greater chance of flooding, with a defined 2 base flood elevation (BFE). B ecause the structure is located in Zone AE, the finished 3 floor elevation (FFE) of the lowest floor mu st be elevated at or above the BFE per 4 federal and American Samoa floodplain manage ment requirements. The finished bottom 5

of the lowest horizontal memb er supporting the lowest habi table floor of the building 6

would be at an elevation of 18.0 feet above median sea level (AMSL). Assuming a 1- 7

foot vertical dimension between the fini shed bottom of the horizontal member 8 supporting each floor and the fi nished floor above as well as a 10-foot ceiling height, the 9 finished floor elevation (FFE ) for the first floor would be 19.0 feet AMSL and the 10

second floor FFE would be 30.0 feet AMSL. 11

12 Findings: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been conclude d that the proposed 13 project will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and no further 14 NEPA analysis (i.e. Environmental Im pact Statement) is warranted. 15

16

Rehabilitation and Relocation of Historic U.S. Customs House, City of Eagle, Alaska, 17 June 2010. ( http://www.fema.gov/libra ry/viewRecord.do?id=4224 ) 18

19 The purpose of this project was to provide funds to repair a Customs House that was 20 damaged and displaced from its foundation by flooding and ice jams, and to move it to a 21 site that offered better pr otection from future flood events. The structure is a 22 contributing building to the Eagle National Historic Landmark (NHL) District which 23 was established on June 2, 1978. It is th e only remaining Klondike Gold Rush Era 24 building on Eagle’s Historic Y ukon River waterfront. The City has determined there is a 25 need to restore and preserve its historic significance and to ma ke it reusable as a 26 museum for the community as soon as f easibly possible. Because the building 27 contributes to an NHL district, an EA was prepared to address the presence of this 28 extraordinary circumstance as required by FEMA’s regulations at 44 CFR 10.8(d)(3). 29

30

The current site of the Customs House is locat ed at the northern edge of the impacted 31 flood damage in Eagle. It is proposed to re pair the Customs House to its original pre32

disaster condition and to relocate the site to higher ground along the riverfront. The new 33 site is located approximately 320 feet to th e northwest of the cu rrent location at the 34 burned and destroyed historic Episcopal Mans e location. The new s ite is owned by the 35 EHSM and is located immediately adjacent to the Episcopal Church, a log structure 36 which was also constructed in 1900, on the locati on of the former Rectory of that church 37 which was destroyed by fire. The proposed si te location was not a ffected by the recent 38 disaster and is situated appr oximately 25 feet higher in elevation and set further back 39

from the river. 40

The house would be re-set on a reconstructed post and pad foundation. Site preparation 41 would be minimal, as the ground is mostly level and has been pr eviously cleared of 42 vegetation. The building would be repaired to its pre-disaster condition in accordance 43 with the Secretary of Interior’s standards for the rehabilitation of hi storic buildings. In 44 the Condition Assessment Report (CAR) prep ared in 2009, it suggests that while the 4532 building was heavily damaged it is repairable. The report also identified the desirability 1 of relocating the structure to a safer site. 2

3

In addition to the relocation and restoration of the Customs House itself, this project 4

envisions the reestablishment of other auxi liary features, includi ng but not limited to 5 perimeter fencing (a white painted two-rail fence), exterior disp lays, and a flagpole. 6

7 Findings: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been conclude d that the proposed 8 project will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and no further 9 NEPA analysis (i.e. Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 10

11 Troublesome Creek Trail Repair Project, Denali State Par k, Alaska, June 2009. 12 ( http://www.fema.gov/libr ary/viewRecord.do?id=3620 ) 13

14 The proposed action by FEMA is to provide partial project f unding to the Alaska 15 Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to repair damaged segments along the existing 16

Troublesome Creek Trail in Denali State Park. 17

18 The proposed project would repair portions of the 24-inch wide by 8.5 mile long trail or 19 realign/relocate about 3.5 miles of the trail. Repair activities would include: clearing 20

debris that blocks the tr ail (or infringes upon the right -of-way); clearing areas of 21 overgrown vegetation; and replacing seven (7) stream crossings. Realign/Relocate 22 activities will focus on moving portions of the trail outsid e of the active floodplain and 23 onto higher ground to avoid risk of exposure to future flood events. These activities 24 include: route selection; site specific design; clearing and grubbing vegetation; installing 25 switchbacks (in steeper segments of the tr ail); and implementing Best Management 26 Practices (BMPs) to preserve the water quality of local streams for a 24-inch wide trail. 27

Construction activities will involve the use of small-scale construction equipment and 28

hand tools. 29

30 Findings: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been conclude d that the proposed 31 project will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and no further 32 NEPA analysis (i.e. Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 33

34 Repair Options for the Battery Park Tr unk Sewer Line, Richmond, Virginia, March 35 2007. ( http://www.fema.gov/libra ry/viewRecord.do?id=2492 ) 36

37 The proposed action by FEMA is to provide f unding to the City of Richmond to relocate 38 a portion of the Battery Park Trunk Sewer Line (BPTS) that was severely damaged in 39 2006 when a sinkhole, associated with Tr opical Depression Ernesto, collapsed and 40 crushed the sewer line causing continued fl ooding and associated health hazards. 41

Alternatives 1 and 2 woul d relocate the damaged portion of the BPTS to avoid 42 encountering the municipal solid waste materi al that lies above th e existing line to the 43 greatest extent possible. Altern ative 1 would involve the cons truction of a ne w section of 44 sewer, approximately 1500-foot long, as well as 2 or 3 large work shaf ts. At least one of 45

the shafts would be excavated in an ar ea known to contain municipal solid waste 4633 material. Alternative 2, approximately 2800-feet long, is designed to avoid the potential 1 for contact with municipal solid waste mate rial nearly entirely by extending the new 2 sewer alignment much furthe r to the north and west. 3

4 Findings: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been determined that both of the 5 proposed alternatives will not significantly aff ect the quality of the human environment, 6 and no further NEPA analysis (i.e. Environm ental Impact Statement) is warranted. 7

8 Consensus Professional Opinion 9

10 DHS has determined through the professiona l knowledge and experience of its staff 11 familiar with the types of activities contemplated by the proposed CATEX that these 12 activities do not typical ly result in a significant impact on the human environment. 13

14 DHS, through FEMA’s disaster recovery pr ograms, provides assistance for relocation 15 and realignment activities most frequently wh en a road is washed out due to flooding. 16 These activities can also occur in open spaces, such as trails (and rails-to-trails). When 17 channels change, FEMA and/or the affect ed community often determines it is not 18 feasible, realistic, or cost e ffective to put structures and facilities back in where they 19 were previously located. Other reasons to relocate facilities include mitigation of risk 20 from natural disaster such as hurricanes, tsunamis, coastal flooding, landslides, and 21 mudslides. Finally, communities frequently wa nt to relocate facilities for reasons 22

unrelated to natura l disasters. 23

24 For example, rural electric cooperatives as we ll as municipalities ofte n desire to relocate 25 electrical systems to be adjacent to a road for service and maintenance points when 26 infrastructure is replaced. FEMA typically uses existing categorica l exclusion (ix) for 27 such projects. Another instance when an activity could fall unde r this categorical 28

exclusion is when there is a water line underneath an existing road and communities 29 want to relocate other utility lines into the same easement or same location under the 30 road. Relocation of domestic water lines, sewer lines, and telephone lines in a similar 31 fashion are other examples of actions that m eet this categorical exclusion. FEMA also 32 uses categorical exclusion (ix) to relocate siren poles for torna do or tsunami warning 33 sirens and other emergency warning devices. 34

35 The consensus professional opinion of the below-named individuals, based on their 36 experience with FEMA and other public organizations as part of managing the 37 environmental liabilities of the organization, is that the activities covered by the proposed 38 CATEX do not under normal circumstances result in significant environmental impacts. 39

40

Professional Credentials 41

42 Mr. Ken Sessa and Mr. Morgan Griffin pr ovided this professional opinion. Their 43 credentials are provided below. 44

45 Ken Sessa, FEMA Regional Envi ronmental Officer, Region 7 46

4734 • Education: 1991 Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering, Missouri 1 University of Science and Technology, Civil Engineering has been an ABET 2 Accredited engineering program continuously since 1936. 3 • Training: Previous course instructor for FEMA E253 Coordinating 4 Environmental and Historic Compliance and E265 Advanced Methods of 5 FEMA’S Historic Preservation Prog ram trainings. Formal training and 6 development in multiple environmental laws and regulations, to include seminars 7 in: CERCLA/Superfund, NHPA, NEPA, RCRA , CWA, CAA, TSCA, and others. 8 Formal training in several environmen tal fields, to include seminars in: 9 alternative manufacturing to includ e process modification and solvent 10 substitutions, alternative environmenta l remediation techniques, ecosystem 11 restoration, industrial wastewater treatm ent, municipal wastewater treatment, 12 solid and hazardous waste management, and others. 13 • Years of related experience: Mr. Sessa has over 25 years in NEPA 14 compliance. Beginning his career wi th the Missouri Department of 15 Transportation, he prepared noise analysis environmen tal analysis to support 16 EISs for urban and suburban highways. Mr . Sessa spent the next seven years as 17 an Environmental Engineer for the U.S. Department of En ergy in the nuclear 18 weapons design and manufacturing where he applied environmental engineering 19 principles to nuclear weapons producti on. This included NEPA compliance, 20 team participation on several progra mmatic EAs and EISs within DOE, air 21 quality permitting (including about 90% CFC solvent reduction at the Kansas 22 City Plant), industrial wast ewater pretreatment, process modification to reduce 23 environmental impacts (air emissions, wa stewater treatment, employee safety, 24 cost impacts). For the past 15 years, he worked at FEMA Region 7 as the 25 Regional Environmental Officer that has included deployments to over 50 26 presidentially declared disasters, including Hurricane Katrina, Superstorm 27 Sandy, and 2008 Midwest flooding. 28

29 Morgan Griffin, FEMA Deputy Regional Environmental Officer, Region IX 30

31

• Education: B.S. Mechanical Engineering, Lafayette College, 1991. M.S. 32 Engineering and Policy, Washington University, 1993. 33 • Training: Previous course instructor for FEMA E/L 253 training, Introduction 34 to EHP Compliance. Course author and four-time instructor for implementation 35 of U.S. Army Europe’s Regulation 200-1 (Environmental Quality Program). 36 • Years of related experience: Mr. Griffin has over 20 ye ars of experience in 37 NEPA compliance. He has served as De puty Regional Environmental Officer in 38 FEMA Region IX for the past four year s. Prior to joining FEMA, Mr. Griffin 39 supported FEMA Region IX and FEMA H eadquarters’ Office of Environmental 40 Planning and Historic Preservation as a c onsultant for 15 years. Mr. Griffin has 41 also provided environmental consulting support to U.S. Army Europe, U.S. 42 Army Reserve, Air National Guard, and Army National Guard. During his 43 career, Mr. Griffin prepared, managed, or approved thousands of CATEXs and at 44 least one hundred EAs resulting in FONSIs . He also worked on or managed three 45

EISs. 4635 Proposed text: *N7 Federal Assistance for Structure and Facility Upgrades. 1 Federal assistance for the reconstruction, elevation, retrofitting, upgrading to 2 current codes and standards, and improvements of pre-existing facilities in 3 existing developed areas wit h substantially completed infrastructure, when the 4 immediate project area has already been disturbed, and when those actions do 5 not alter basic functions, do not exceed c apacity of other syst em components, or 6 modify intended land use. This categor y does not include actions within or 7 affecting streams or stream banks, or ac tions seaward of the limit of moderate 8 wave action (or within V zones when the limit of moderate wave action has not 9 been identified). 10

11 Rationale and Support for CATEX 12

13 DHS frequently provides funding for upgrades to existing structures and facilities under 14 a variety of grant programs, particularly those administered by FEMA. Two existing 15 FEMA CATEXs cover facility upgrades: CATEX (xv), the language of which is largely 16 adopted in the proposed new CATEX; and CATEX (xvi), which covers improvements to 17 existing facilities and small-sc ale construction for hazard mitigation measures. Similarly, 18 DHS CATEX (D1) covers renovations and addi tions to buildings, roads, airfields, 19 grounds, equipment, and other facilities. DHS has determined through years of 20 experience implementing these types of acti ons that they do not individually or 21 cumulatively have the potential to result in significant impacts on the quality of the 22 human environment, and that it therefore re mains appropriate to categorically exclude 23 these actions from a higher level of NEPA analysis. 24

25 The actions covered by this CATEX would in clude a variety of preparedness and hazard 26 mitigation actions such as installation of cameras, CCTV, telecommunication 27 equipment, and security enhancements; seis mic, wind, and flood-related retrofits; fire 28 protection measures; reconstr uction; upgrade to codes and standards; and placement of 29 safe rooms (i.e., hardened structures specifi cally designed to meet FEMA criteria and 30 provide protection in extreme weather even ts, including tornadoe s and hurricanes). 31

32 “Pre-existing” refers to structures and facili ties that existed prior to an applicant seeking 33 DHS grant funding or other assistance. “I mprovements” includes building something 34 new that is physically attached to and n eeded for the improved facility as long as it 35 meets the conditions of the CATEX (i.e. devel oped areas, disturbed area s, etc.). It does 36 not include building something new if it is physically unattach ed to the improved 37 facility. 38

39 This category is intended to cover activities with limited ground disturbance. Generally, 40 this category is not intended to cover im provements, upgrades, or construction where 41 there may be adverse effects on flood levels or local hydrology. An activity that alters 42 systems capacity means that a component canno t be installed in a system which would 43 allow the overall system capacity to be exceeded. 44

45 Application of this CATEX to a proposed action would require a REC to document 46 alignment with the scope of the CATEX, ev aluation of extraordin ary circumstances, and 4736 compliance with other EP&HP requirements. Typically, the issues that DHS encounters 1 with structure and facility upgrades are related to other EP&HP compliance 2 requirements such as NHPA Section 106, ESA S ection 7, and EO 11988, among others. 3

4 Comparable CATEXs 5

6
FEMA CATEXs 7

8 (xv) Repair, reconstruction, restoration, elevation, retrof itting, upgrading to current 9 codes and standards, or replacement of any fa cility in a manner that substantially 10 conforms to the preexisting design, function, and location. 11

12 (xvi) Improvements to exis ting facilities and the constr uction of small scale hazard 13 mitigation measures in existing develope d areas with substantially completed 14 infrastructure, when the immediate project area has already been disturbed, and when 15 those actions do not alter basic functions , do not exceed capacity of other system 16 components, or modify intended land use; provided the operation of the completed 17 project will not, of itself, have an adverse effect on the quality of the human 18

environment. 19

20
DHS CATEX 21

22 (D1) Minor renovations and additions to buildings, roads, airfields, grounds, equipment, 23 and other facilities that do not result in a change in the functional use of the real 24 property (e.g. realigning interior spaces of an existing building, adding a small storage 25 shed to an existing building, retrofitting for energy conservation, or installing a small 26 antenna on an already existing antenna tower th at does not cause the total height to 27 exceed 200 feet and where the FCC would not require an environmental assessment or 28 environmental impact statement for the installation). 29

30 Consensus Professional Opinion 31

32 Building codes are routinely updated and adopt ed by individual communities. What was 33 damaged during a disaster event can rarely be restored without consideration of current 34 building codes . Once local communities upgr ade or adopt building codes, these codes 35 are applicable to FEMA gr ant-funded repairs. In a ddition, FEMA routinely updates 36 floodplain maps, and communities participating in the NFIP are required to adopt the 37 latest maps and enforce them as codes and standards to continue participation in the 38 program; these are codes and standards th at could apply to FEMA-grant funded 39 structural repairs and rehabi litation. Also, activities to ensure compliance with the 40 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) could also apply to these types of FEMA-grant 41 funded projects. 42

43 FEMA has unique opportunities during disaster recovery to assist communities in 44 building back more resiliently and mitigating against future disaster damage. These 45 include seismic retrofits, structural retrof its that may include roof tie-downs and 4637 continuous load path engineering, and a pplying modern construction materials and 1 techniques such as fire-res istant roof shingles. 2

In applying existing CATEX (xv), FEMA is re stricted to pre-existing design, function, 3 and location. FEMA typically uses the build ing footprint as a parameter for simplicity 4 of application of this CATEX ; however the construction/dist urbed footprint is typically 5 much larger than the boundaries of the building itself and includes utility and 6 construction trenches, staging areas, access roads, etc. that are not easily defined. The 7 proposed CATEX allows for more flexibility in community recover y, without adversely 8 impacting the carrying capacity of the envi ronment, and is consistent with lessons 9 learned from applying hazard mitigation meas ures and other small-scale improvements 10 during community recovery efforts. 11

When applying CATEX (xv), FEMA adheres to the conditions and limitations specified 12 in its 1996 NEPA Desk Reference ( http://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/ 13

documents/13165?id=3249 ). These include ensuring there are no adverse effects to flood 14 levels, local hydrology, drainage patterns, erosion and sedime ntation rates; no increases 15 in flooding elsewhere or change s in downstream flow pattern s; and the activities do not 16 exceed system capacity or modify intended land use. These same conditions and 17 limitations would be applicab le under the proposed CATEX. 18

FEMA Policy Memo 406, Hazard Mitigation Funding Under Section 406 (Stafford Act) 19 (March 30, 2010) ( http://www.fema.gov/pdf/government/grant/pa/9526_1.pdf ) includes 20 examples of cost effective upgrades. FE MA grant-funded upgrades include properly 21 sizing drainage structures, provi ding erosion protection at drai nage structures, stabilizing 22 roadways with geotextile fabrics, elevati ng access covers from wastewater collection 23 systems to prevent infiltration, elevating elec tronic controls to pump stations, water 24 treatment, and wastewater treatment facili ties, installation of redundant poles for pole 25 mounted electrical equipment (e.g., tran sformers), moving pole-mounted heavy 26 electrical equipment (e.g., tran sformers) to adjacent pad m ounts, and utilizing stronger 27 building techniques and retrofits. The list of cost-effective up grades is based on years of 28 FEMA experience funding hazard m itigation and recovery actions. 29

30 The consensus professional opinion of the below-named individuals, based on their 31 experience with FEMA and other public organizations as part of managing the 32 environmental liabilities of the organization, is that the activities covered by the proposed 33 CATEX do not normally result in significant environmental impacts. 34

35

Professional Credentials 36

37 Mr. Ken Sessa and Mr. Morgan Griffin pr ovided this professional opinion. Their 38 credentials are provided unde r proposed CATEX *N6 above. 39

40 Proposed text: * N8 Federal Assistance for New Construction Activities of 41 Less Than One Acre in Undisturbed or Undeveloped Areas. Federal 42
assistance for new construction and associ ated site preparation activities in 43 undisturbed or undeveloped areas when t he activities comprise less than one 4438 acre and follow best management practices to control noise, water, and air 1 pollution. This category does not apply to new construction in undisturbed or 2 undeveloped floodplains, wetlands, or seawar d of the limit of moderate wave 3 action (or V zone when the limit of moderate wave action has not been 4 identified). This CATEX covers the range of activities typicall y necessary for new 5 construction, including field work (e.g. borings, site inspection) and temporary 6 staging and use of construc tion equipment and vehicles. 7

8 Rationale and Support for CATEX 9

10 DHS, through FEMA, frequently provides f unding to grantees for new construction 11 activities. This type of activity has resulted in an extensive number of site-specific EAs 12 as well as Programmatic EAs (PEA) within FEMA. This proposed CATEX covers the 13 construction of new facilities or structures in areas that have not been disturbed as long 14 as the activity does not result in construction disturbance of more than one acre. The 15 CATEX includes all activities typically nece ssary for new constr uction including land 16 acquisition, field work (e.g. bori ngs, site inspection), staging of equipment and vehicles, 17 site preparation as long as it follows best management practic es to control noise, water, 18 and air pollution (e.g. silt fe nces, stormwater best mana gement practices, dust and 19 particulate matter control, oil spill prev ention, etc.), placement of foundation, and 20

construction of structures and facilities. The one acre limitation is based on the need for 21 stormwater pollution prevention permits for cons truction activities of more than one acre 22

under the Clean Water Act. 23

24 For purposes of this CATEX “new construction” is defined as either building or placing 25 a structure or facility that did not exist be fore DHS’s involvement with the project. 26

27 Explicitly excluded from the CATEX are ne w construction actions in floodplains or 28 wetlands. Requiring EAs for new construc tion in undeveloped areas within the 29 floodplain would allow for adequate docum entation of avoidance alternatives, 30 minimization actions, and public review and comment through the EA process. This 31 requirement of a hard look at new construc tion in the floodplain would be aligned with 32 DHS’s mission to ensure wise use of floodpl ains, the administration of the National 33 Flood Insurance Program, and EO 11988. 34

35

DHS considered whether the CATEX should c over new construction up to five acres. 36

This threshold was based on the distinc tion made by the EPA of large and small 37 construction activities in 40 CFR Part 122.26( b). However, EPA no longer uses this 38 threshold for determining the type of construction permit needed. EPA has created a 39

threshold of construction of more than 10 acres for triggering certain analyses and 40 monitoring requirements. DHS opted for not using 10 acres because the funding of 41

construction activities of more than five acre s is rare. Furthermore, DHS feels that in 42 situations involving constructi on of more than one acre in undeveloped areas, the project 43 deserves a higher level of scrutiny, altern ative evaluation, and public involvement. 44

4539 Application of this CATEX to a proposed action would require a REC to document 1 alignment with the scope of the CATEX, ev aluation of extraordin ary circumstances, and 2 compliance with other EP&HP requirements. Typically, the issues that DHS encounters 3 with construction activities are related to other EP&HP compliance requirements such as 4 NHPA Section 106, ESA Section 7, and EO 11988, among others. 5

6 Comparable DHS CATEXs 7

8 (E2) New construction upon or improvemen t of land where all of the following 9 conditions are met: (a) The structure and pr oposed use are compatible with applicable 10 Federal, tribal, state, and local plan ning and zoning standards and consistent with 11 federally-approved state coastal management programs, (b) The site is in a developed 12 area and/or a previously-disturbed site, (c ) The proposed use will not substantially 13 increase the number of motor vehicles at the facility or in the area, (d) The site and 14 scale of construction or improvement are consis tent with those of ex isting, adjacent, or 15 nearby buildings, and, (e) The construction or improvement will not result in uses that 16 exceed existing support infrastructure capaci ties (roads, sewer, water, parking, etc.). 17

18 Supporting EAs 19

20 FEMA has developed PEAs that capture this activity type and ha s consistently found no 21 significant impacts. These PEAs include: 22

23

 Grant Programs Directorate projects 24 ( http://www.fema.gov/libr ary/viewRecord.do?id=4143 ) 25

26

 Integrated Public Alert and Warning Systems (IPAWS) construction projects 27 ( http://www.fema.gov/libr ary/viewRecord.do?id=4174 ) 28

29

 Hazard Mitigation Assistance Safe Room projects 30 ( http://www.fema.gov/libr ary/viewRecord.do?id=4670 ) 31

32 FEMA has evaluated these projects at a nationwide programmatic level and develops 33 RECs on a site-specific level to document whether the FONSI covers the action or 34 whether a Tiered Site-Specific EA has been needed. No projects at the site-specific 35 level have triggered the need for an EIS. 36

37 In addition to the PEAs listed above, the follo wing examples of site-specific EAs that 38 resulted in FONSIs support the proposed CATEX: 39

40 TLC Health Network Tri-County Family Medici ne Clinic Facility Replacement Project, 41 Town of Hanover, Chautauqua County, New York, July 2011. 42 ( http://www.fema.gov/media- library-data/20130726-1851-25045- 43 6750/july_12_2011_draft_ea_tlc_fam ily_medicine_clinic.pdf ) 44

4540 The proposed action is to construct a new 2,930 sq. ft. family medical facility to restore 1

critical medical services to the affected community. 2

3 The Applicant would purchase a 2-acre sub-divi ded lot of a 29-acre parcel with 200 feet 4 of frontage, a site that is located approximate ly one-mile from the or iginal facility. The 5 building foundation would consist of a slab on- grade construction with footings to an 6

elevation below the frost line. Access to the facility would require construction of a new 7 road and parking area for approximately 12 - 15 vehicles. Sanitary waste would be 8 managed via an onsite wastewater treatment system with a septic tank and leach field. 9 Electric and gas service would come from existing lines. Water supply would be 10 provided by a well to be cons tructed. Stormwater runo ff would be managed through 11 onsite management measures such as a st ormwater detention pond. The proposed action 12

would involve demobilization of its interim f acility at 4 Hanover Street in Forestville. 13 The modular trailer that currently exists at this site would be relocated or sold, and any 14 required site restoration would occur to end the lease of this property. 15

16 Findings: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been conclude d that the proposed 17 project will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and no further 18 NEPA analysis (i.e. Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 19

20 Waterloo High School Seismic Upgrade Proj ect, Monroe County, Illinois, April 2007. 21 ( http://www.fema.gov/libr ary/viewRecord.do?id=2527 ). 22

23 The proposed action is to incorporate seismic building standards into the construction of 24 the new Waterloo High School. 25

26 The proposed action will include upgrade s to the planned Waterloo High School's 27 structural, architectural, mech anical, electrical, fire prot ection, hydronic, and plumbing 28 systems to FEMA 424 seismic standards. The planned high school was a new 220,000 29 square foot facility. Specific activities incl uded in this alternative include structural 30 upgrades to increase steel weight, st rengthening of framing connections, and 31 implementation of seismic isolation meas ures. Architectural upgrades include the 32 addition of galvanized steel support channels and hangers sized and suited for seismic 33 requirements. The mechanical upgrades include equipment curbs with seismic isolation 34 and hangers, and supports with vibration cap acity and seismic sizing. The electrical 35 upgrades feature the addition of inertia ba ses, conduit transverse bracing, conduit 36 longitudinal bracing, and seismic fixture clips. The fire protection upgrades include the 37 addition of spring hangers, single pipe tran sverse bracing, and singl e pipe longitudinal 38 bracing. Hydronic system upgrades include the addition of inertia bases, spring hangers, 39 single pipe transverse and longitudinal br acing. The plumbing system upgrades are the 40 addition of inertia bases, seismic snubbers, spring hangers, single pipe transverse and 41 longitudinal bracing. 42

43 Findings: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been conclude d that the proposed 44 project will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and no further 45 NEPA analysis (i.e. Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 4641 Replacement of the Escambia County Mos quito Control Facility, Escambia County, 1 Florida, July 2006. ( http://www.fema.gov/library /viewRecord.do?id=2201 ) 2

3 The proposed action is to reconstruct a Mosqui to Control Facility, which is part of a 4 larger facility, in an undeveloped portion of the larger facility. 5

6 The proposed Mosquito Control Facility would c onsist of four struct ures and associated 7 parking, landscaping, and stormwater dete ntion. Building A would be a 1,527-square 8 foot office building. Building B would be a second office building, consisting of 2,971- 9 square feet. Building C would be a 2,705-squa re foot storage structure. Building D 10 would be a 920-square foot chemical storag e structure, with associated secondary 11

containment. 12

13 Findings: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been conclude d that the proposed 14 project will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and no further 15 NEPA analysis (i.e. Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 16

17 Poynette-Dekorra Fire Protect ion District EOC/Fire/EMS Facility, Village of Poynette, 18 Wisconsin, August 2009. ( http://www.fema.gov/libra ry/viewRecord.do?id=3746 ) 19

20 The proposed action is to cons truct a new fire station. 21

22

The new fire station will be a single-story structure appr oximately 22,000 SF in size. A 23 paved parking lot and sidewalks will be pl aced around the building. New curb and gutter 24

and storm sewer will be constructed to drai n runoff from the parking lot. Stormwater 25 will be managed with 0.42 acre-feet of wet detention basin volume for storm events up 26 to and including the 100-year event. Infilt ration basin volume will be 0.08 acre-feet for 27 storm events up to and including the 10-year event. The proposed site grading plan 28 divides the existing drainage basin into two on-site draina ge basins to the north and 29 south, with a third smaller off-site drainage sub-basin to the east. The existing gravel 30 Water Tower Road will be replaced with a pave d street with curb and gutter from North 31 Street to the existing access driveway to th e Alliant Energy building to the west. Some 32 vegetation will be removed and some animal s would be temporarily displaced. The 33 site’s new landscaping will include trees and bushes and stormwater ponds that will 34 provide habitat for wildlife. 35

36 Findings: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been conclude d that the proposed 37 project will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and no further 38 NEPA analysis (i.e. Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 39 Proposed text: * N9 Federal Assistance for Flood Hazard Reduction 40

Actions. Federal assistance for drainage, berm , water crossing, and detention, 41 retention, or sediment pond projects which have the primary purpose of 42 addressing flood hazards and: 43

44 a. Do not affect more than 25 acres, 4542 b. Do not result in adverse flood risk effects to downstream 1 communities, 2 c. Do not result in any increase of flood levels within the community 3 during the occurrence of the bas e flood discharge if the action 4 takes place within the regulatory floodway, and 5 d. Where the effect of the pr oposed project when combined with 6 other existing or reasonably foreseeable development will not 7
increase water surface elevati on of the base flood more than one 8 foot at any point within the community if it the action takes place in 9 a floodplain with no regulatory floodway. 10

11
This CATEX covers minor flood control actions as identified in Sections 1366 12
and 1361 of the National Flood Insurance Ac t (NFIA). Actions that are not 13
covered in Sections 1366 and 1361 of the NFIA, such as dikes, levees, 14 seawalls, groins, and jetties, are excluded from this CATEX. 15

16 Rationale and Support for CATEX 17

18 This is a proposed new CATEX. DHS, through FEMA, has provided funding for 19 numerous drainage improvement projects th rough its HMA grants. None of these 20 projects have triggered the need for EISs, and EAs prepared for these projects have 21

resulted in FONSIs. 22

23

This CATEX that would cover actions such as drainage projects; be rms; water crossings 24 (e.g. culverts and bridges); and detention, re tention, and sediment ponds that have the 25 primary purpose of addressing flood hazards. As used in this CATEX, a “berm” is an 26 earthen feature that is placed along slopes to control erosion or improve slope stability. 27 Under this CATEX, a berm is not intended to mean a levee, which is a man-made 28 structure designed and constructed with sound engineering practices to contain, control 29

or divert the flow of water in order to provide protecti on from temporary flooding. The 30

CATEX is intended to cover minor flood cont rol actions as identified in Section 1366 31 and 1361 of the National Flood Insurance Act (NFIA) which do not include dikes, 32 levees, seawalls, groins, and jetties. Ther efore, dikes, levees, seawalls, groins, and 33 jetties are excluded from this CATEX. 34

35 “Affect” under limitation (a) is intended to capture the cumu lative amount of ground 36 disturbance associated with the protective measures and the size of the area to be 37 protected. In order to apply the CATEX to a proposed action, the combination of the 38 area to be protected and ground distur bance must not exceed 25 acres. 39

40 This CATEX captures some standards for minimization of floodplain impacts such as 41 avoidance of flood risk effects (a), encr oachment prohibitions (c) and (d), and 42 minimization of impacts to floodplain values (e). 43

44 With limitation (e), DHS intends to enc ourage practices that avoid, minimize, or 45 mitigate impacts to environmental and hist oric resources and wetlands or floodplain 4643 functions such as their conveyance capacit y, moderation of flow velocity, groundwater 1 recharge, improvement of water quality, ha bitat characteristics, and flood moderation. 2 Compensatory mitigation actions are acceptable mitigation measures if they are agreed 3 to by the applicable governmental entity that has regulatory oversight over the affected 4

resource. 5

6 Application of this CATEX to a proposed action would require a REC to document 7 alignment with the scope of the CATEX, ev aluation of extraordinary circumstances, and 8 compliance with other EP&HP requirements. Typically, the issues that DHS encounters 9

with flood hazard reduction actions are related to other EP&HP compliance 10 requirements such as NHPA Section 106, ESA Section 7, EOs 11988 and 11990, among 11

others. 12

13 Supporting EAs 14

15 Wildwood Creek Detention Basins, City of Yucaipa, California, November 2007. 16 ( http://www.fema.gov/media-libra ry/assets/documents/12505?id=3075 ) 17

18 In the Proposed Action, the City of Yucaipa would construct one desilting basin, two 19 detention basins, and a natural bottom channe l (bioretention swale) on approximately 20 20 to 25 acres in and adjacent to Wildwood Creek in the southeastern part of the City. The 21 total project area is 29.5 acres. The proj ect area is bounded by Wildwood Canyon Road 22 to the north, Holmes Street to the west, and Serape Drive to the southeast. The desilting 23 basin would have approximately 4 acre-feet capacity. The detention basins would have 24 approximately 30 and 45 acre-feet capacities . The Proposed Action is needed to help 25 protect people and public and private pr operty within the Wildwood Creek floodplain 26 from flooding hazards. During floods, rushing wa ter and silt deposits disrupt the traffic 27 along the City’s roadways. Wildwood Canyon Road and Avenue G, roads adjacent to 28 the creek, are often damaged as the creek embankments erode. Road closures are 29 sometimes required. 30

31 Findings: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been conclude d that the proposed 32 project will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and no further 33 NEPA analysis (i.e. Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 34

35 Harris County Flood Control District Project, Harris County, Texas, May 2011. 36 ( http://www.fema.gov/libr ary/viewRecord.do?id=4692 ) 37

38 As a direct result of the flooding in Wh ite Oak Bayou, Jersey Village experienced 39 property damage to residential and commer cial structures. Apart from flooding 40 associated with Hurricane Ike, homes and businesses in Jersey Village along White Oak 41 Bayou experience frequent and severe floodi ng during storm events. When severe 42 flooding occurs, residential structures are damaged, roads are made impassible, and 43 other critical infrastructure can be damage d and/or destroyed which adversely affects 44 public safety, health and welfare. 45

4644 Studies conducted by the HCFCD indicate th at the construction of a storm water 1 detention basin on an upstream tributary of White Oak Bayou would significantly reduce 2 the risk of flooding and would prevent future flood losses and damages to property in the 3 project area. Based on these studies and the overlying need when severe flooding occurs 4 in the project area, the HCFCD prepared and submitted an application for FEMA 5 funding under an HMGP grant to develop a st orm water detention basin on an upstream 6 tributary of White Oak Bayou. The proposed pr oject site would be entirely constructed 7 within an existing 41.93-acr e tract of land. The propos ed action would include 8 improving storm water detention along White Oak Bayou in Jersey Village by 9

construction of a 399 acre-foot storm water de tention basin with an inlet channel/inlet 10

weir to divert flood flows from HCFCD Un it E135-00-00 into the basin. The proposed 11

action would also include a 48- inch reinforced concrete pi pe (RCP) or corrugated metal 12 pipe (CMP) located in the sout heast corner of the project ar ea to provide discharge from 13 the proposed storm water detenti on basin to HCFCD Unit E135-00-00. 14

15 Findings: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been conclude d that the proposed 16 project will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and no further 17 NEPA analysis (i.e. Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 18

19 Moore Drain Flood Mitigation Project, Tuscola County, Michigan. December 2003. 20 ( http://www.fema.gov/libr ary/viewRecord.do?id=2003 ) 21

22 The proposed action was developed to addre ss flooding in the C ity of Vassar. The 23 project involved modification of an existi ng earthen berm, constr uction of a diversion 24 conduit, and improvements to Moore Drain. The berm modification would provide 85 25 percent reduction in the fre quency of flooding against 10-year events. Work occurred 26 along approximately 3,700 feet of the Cass River. Alternatives for the project included 27

the construction of a berm and creation of detention ponds of 130 acres and 50 acres. 28

29 Findings: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been conclude d that the proposed 30 project will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and no further 31 NEPA analysis (i.e. Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 32

33 Pigeon Creek Flood Mitigation Project, Ozaukee, Wisconsin, March 2006. 34 ( http://www.fema.gov/media-libra ry/assets/documents/6678?id=2185 ) 35

36 The primary source of flooding problems at th e Village of Thiensvi lle is bank overflows 37 from the 6,927-acre tributary watershed of Pi geon Creek, which is a sub-watershed of 38

the Milwaukee River Watershe d. In addition, existing manm ade structures such as 39 bridges and culverts were not constructed to handle the current flood water levels. The 40 purpose of the proposed project is to fulfill the need for more efficient (and cost41 effective) handling of water in flood events in order to protect human health, safety and 42 private property. This w ould protect surrounding homes and businesses from flooding, 43 restore roadway access, and relieve sanitary sewer backups. 44

4545 One alternative involved conveyance im provements along Pigeon Creek in downtown 1 Thiensville, as well as upstream storag e in the City of Mequon. The conveyance 2 improvements include widening three reaches of the channel, reconfiguring riprap 3 beneath the Main Street Bridge, removing ex isting car lot culverts and replacing them 4 with a 60-foot stream channel, removing a nd replacing two bridges, and installing a new 5 70-foot pedestrian/u tility bridge. With the proposed conveyance improvements and 6 utilization of approximately 58 acre-feet of ups tream storage, a target flood elevation of 7

659.5 feet would be reached in downtown Thie nsville. The proposed storage component 8 of the project is located a pproximately 1.5 miles northwest of Thiensville, and includes 9 control of an existing road outlet structure to make maxi mum use of natural storage 10 capacity to achieve the necessary water storage. The target elevation of 659.5 feet is the 11 lowest possible flood stage that can be achieved in the downtown area because the 12

backwater effect of the Milwa ukee River in a 100-year event is equal to an elevation of 13

659.5 feet. 14

15

Another alternative would involve conveyance improvements along Pigeon Creek in 16 downtown Thiensville, as well as upstream storage in the City of Mequon. The 17 conveyance improvements include widening of three reaches of the channel, removing 18 existing car lot culverts and re placing them with a 60-foot stream channel, removing and 19 replacing two bridges, and installing a new 70-foot pedestrian/utility bridge. The width 20 of the stream channel through the car lot woul d be the same as previous alternative; 21

however it would be constructed with more of a side slope and le ss surface area on the 22 bottom of the channel (trapezoidal shape vs . square), creating reduced capacity for 23

water. Because the volume of the proposed stream channel is reduced from that of 24 previous alternative, and no widening or r econfiguration of riprap beneath the Main 25 Street Bridge is proposed, approximately 300 acre-feet of storag e would have been 26 needed to achieve the target flood eleva tion of 659.5 in downtown Thiensville. The 27 proposed storage component requires using f our water storage area s in the City of 28 Mequon. 29

30 Findings: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been conclude d that the proposed 31 project will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and no further 32 NEPA analysis (i.e. Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 33

34 Harris County Flood Control District Pr oject, Harris County, Texas, May 2011. 35 ( http://www.fema.gov/media-libra ry/assets/documents/21724?id=4692 ) 36

37 As a direct result of the flooding in Wh ite Oak Bayou, Jersey Village experienced 38 property damage to residential and commer cial structures. Apart from flooding 39 associated with Hurricane Ike, homes and businesses in Jersey Village along White Oak 40 Bayou experience frequent and severe floodi ng during storm events. When severe 41 flooding occurs, residential structures are damaged, roads are made impassible, and 42 other critical infrastructure can be damage d and/or destroyed whic h adversely affects 43 public safety, health and welfare. 44

4546 Studies conducted by the HCFCD indicate th at the construction of a stormwater 1 detention basin on an upstream tributary of White Oak Bayou would significantly reduce 2 the risk of flooding and would prevent future flood losses and damages to property in the 3 project area. Based on these studies and the overlying need when severe flooding occurs 4 in the project area, the HCFCD prepared and submitted an application for FEMA 5 funding under an HMGP grant to develop a st ormwater detention basin on an upstream 6 tributary of White Oak Bayou. The proposed pr oject would be constructed entirely with 7 an existing 41.93 acre tract of land. The proposed acti on would include improving 8 stormwater detention along White Oak Bayou in Jersey Village by construction of a 399 9

acre-foot stormwater detenti on basin with an inlet channe l/inlet weir to divert flood 10

flows from HCFCD Unit E135-00-00 into th e basin. The proposed action would also 11 include a 48-inch reinforced concrete pi pe (RCP) or corrugated metal pipe (CMP) 12 located in the southeast corner of the pr oject area to provide discharge from the 13 proposed stormwater detention ba sin to HCFCD Unit E135-00-00. 14

15 Findings: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been conclude d that the proposed 16 project will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and no further 17 NEPA analysis (i.e. Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 18

Proposed text: * N10 Federal Assistance for Communication Towers of 19

Less Than 400 Feet. 

### Federal assistance for the construction of 20


### communication towers when all of the following are met: 21

22 a. The total height is less than 400 feet above ground level, 23 b. The tower construction pr oject has been through the Federal 24 Communications Commission (F CC) Antenna Structure 25 Registration (ASR) process and has been documented as 26 meeting FCC environmental pla nning and historic preservation 27 procedures for the ASR, 28 c. The project is located farther than 660 feet from a Bald Eagle’s 29 nest or 0.6 mile from a Golden Eagle nest, 30 d. The tower is not located on ridgel ines or in coastal zones, bird 31 staging areas, colonial nesting si tes, 100- or 500-year floodplains, 32 or wetlands, and 33 e. The lighting scheme meets all applicable US Fish and Wildlife 34 Service guidelines for reducing potential impacts to night35 migrating birds. 36

37
This CATEX covers associated activities such as installation of fuel storage 38 tanks, equipment buildings, security f encing and lighting, and access roads, and 39 land disturbance activities typically associated with construction such as 40 clearing, fill, and grading. 41 Rationale and Support for CATEX 42

43

This is a new CATEX intended to extend th e height limitation in existing DHS CATEX 44 (E1), which is 200 feet. DHS, through FE MA, has reviewed several hundred tower 4547 projects since 2007, the year when the Grant Programs Directorate (GPD) was 1 incorporated into the Agency. GPD admi nisters numerous emergency preparedness 2 grant programs, including seve ral under which tower construction and modification are 3 eligible project activities. Another DHS Component, the National Protection and 4 Programs Directorate, administers the Border Interoperability Demonstration Program, a 5 grant program that also provi des funding for tower construction. These programs have 6 given DHS sufficient experience in assessing the potential environmental impacts of this 7 type of action. 8

9 The proposed CATEX is based on DHS’s experi ence gained from the review of several 10 hundred grant-funded tower projects across the nation. In DHS’s experience, the 11 impacts to migratory birds have not trigge red significant cumulative impacts warranting 12 the preparation of an EIS. Even with towe rs taller than 450 feet , the impacts of DHS’s 13 funding actions have not result ed in significant impacts. 14

15 This proposed CATEX includes the constr uction and operation of communications 16 towers, including associated equipment and ac tivities (e.g., installati on of fuel storage 17 tanks, security fencing and lighting, access roads, and land disturbance activities 18 typically associated with cons truction such as clearing, fill , and grading). Criteria (a) 19 through (e) must be met. Towers taller than 400 feet are explicitly excluded from this 20

CATEX. 21

22 The CATEX calls for the processing of pr oposed federally-assisted tower projects 23 through the FCC Antenna Stru cture Registration (ASR) pr ocess, which includes an 24 EP&HP review process, before they are reviewed by DHS. The FCC has developed a 25 comprehensive EP&HP review process that accounts for environmental impacts of 26 towers. The FCC’s EP&HP review proce ss includes a NEPA analysis, Section 106 27 review through Nationwide Programmatic Ag reements, and Tribal coordination through 28 the Tower Construction Notification System (TCNS). The submittal and review of 29 documentation produced for the ASR process is useful in avoiding duplication of 30 reviews, time delays, and unnecessary cost s. A tower project with no documentation 31 satisfying the FCC’s ASR EP&HP process w ould not be included in this CATEX. 32

33 The additional limitations in the CATEX are intended to reduce the potential for 34 individual and cumulative impacts of DHS-fund ed towers on migratory birds. Presence 35 of these conditions would trigger further analysis through an EA or EIS process, 36 including the requirement for identification of reasonable alternativ es and public review 37 and comment opportunities. 38

39 Application of this CATEX to a proposed action would require a REC to document 40 alignment with the scope of the CATEX, ev aluation of extraordinary circumstances, and 41 compliance with other EP&HP requirements. Typically, the issues that DHS encounters 42 with communication tower projects ar e related to other EP&HP compliance 43 requirements such as NHPA Section 106, ESA Section 7, EO 11988, and the Migratory 44 Bird Treaty Act, among others. 45

4648 Comparable CATEXs 1

2
FEMA CATEX 3

4 (ix) Acquisition, installation, or operation of utility and communication systems that use 5 existing distribution systems or facilities, or currently used infrastructure rights-of-way. 6

7
DHS CATEX 8

9 (E1) Construction, installation, operation, maintenance, and removal of utility and 10 communication systems (such as mobile an tennas, data processing cable, and similar 11 electronic equipment) that us e existing rights-of-way, ease ments, utility distribution 12 systems, and/or facilities. This is limited to activities with towers where the resulting 13 total height does not exceed 200 feet and where the FCC would not require an 14

environmental assessment or environmenta l impact statement for the acquisition, 15 installation, operation or maintenance. 16

17 Supporting EAs 18

19 450-foot Tower, Harrisonville, Ca ss County, Missouri, December 2009. 20 ( http://www.fema.gov/media-libra ry/assets/documents/17398?id=3861 ) 21

22 The Proposed Action is the construction of a 450-foot guyed lattice communications 23 tower. The Cass County site is rural and unde veloped. The site is located approximately 24

938 feet above mean sea level in an area of rolling hills. The proposed 2,500 square foot 25 compound will enclose the following: the 450-f oot lattice guyed tower, a 11-foot by 16- 26 foot equipment shelter on a concrete pad, a 1,000-gallon propane aboveground storage 27 tank (AST) on a concrete pad, a H-frame with a single meter can, and a 50 kilowatt 28 (KW) generator on a 4-foot by 9-foot concrete pad. An 8-foot tall chain-link fence will 29 surround the perimeter of the propos ed compound area. The power and 30

telecommunications lines will be connect ed to an existing transformer and 31

telecommunications line locat ed southeast of the site. 32

33 Findings: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been conclude d that the proposed 34 project will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and no further 35 NEPA analysis (i.e. Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 36

37 Communication Tower, Coryell Coun ty, Gatesville, Texas, April 2010. 38 ( https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/26398 ) 39

40 The Proposed Action is the construction of a 460-foot guyed wire telecommunications 41 tower that will be located approximately 600 feet south of Rocky Road in Gatesville, 42 Coryell County, Texas. The site is cleared grassland ar ea surrounded by woodland 43 vegetation. The site is approximately 1,020 feet above mean sea level. As noted in the 44 reviewed databases and maps, there are no in dications of wetlands, floodplains, coastal 45 management zones, and wild or scenic ri vers. The tower site will be located on a 4649 developed 0.61-acre parcel of land containing: a 280- foot guy-wire tower, two 1 equipment shelters, a propane tank, and a stan dalone emergency generator. The existing 2

280-foot telecommunications towe r, one of the equipment sh elters and the propane tank 3 will be removed, and the existing propane-pow ered generator will be replaced with a 4 new diesel-powered emergency generato r. The proposed 460-foot tower will be 5 constructed on a 10-foot by 10-foot area adj acent to the remaining equipment shelter. 6 There will be three (3) sets of six (6) guy wires for a total of 18 wires. The tower’s 7 surface impact area will be less than 0.10 acre. 8

9 Findings: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been conclude d that the proposed 10 project will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and no further 11 NEPA analysis (i.e. Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 12

13 600-foot Communications Tower, Sc ott County, Mississippi, May 2010. 14 ( http://www.fema.gov/libr ary/viewRecord.do?id=4202 ). 15

16 The Proposed Action consists of constr uction of a 600-foot guyed communications 17 tower and associated equipment compound to facilitate installation and operation of 18

wireless communications ante nnae to provide integrated emergency communications 19 between federal, state, and local agencies . These antennae include microwave dishes 20

that are to be used to send and receive information over long distances without the 21

limitations associated with c onnection to land lines /cables (primarily interruptions in 22 service due to damage to land lines/cables during emergencies or natural disasters). 23

24 Findings: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been conclude d that the proposed 25 project will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and no further 26 NEPA analysis (i.e. Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 27

28 Central Maintenance Facility 250 Communicat ions Tower, Pierce County, Washington, 29 May 2010. ( http://www.fema.gov/libra ry/viewRecord.do?id=4176 ) 30

31 The Proposed Action would construct a latt ice free-standing 250’ emergency radio 32 communication tower and associated 360 square foot equipment building at the CMF in 33 two phases. Phase 1 would consist of the 50 f oot by 90 foot (4500 square feet total) site 34 preparation, pouring of the cement foundation, in stallation of the first 160 feet of the 35

steel radio tower with 17 foot antennas at th e top of the tower, br inging the total height 36 to 177 feet, installation of the equipment sh elter, and a 6-foot chain link fence with 37 locked gate. A maximum of four (4) six- foot diameter high performance microwave 38 dishes will be installed during Phase 1 at the heights of 158 feet and 128 feet. Phase 2 39 would increase the height of the tower by a dding another 73 feet, bringing it to 250 feet 40 in height and will have four (4) more six-foot microwave dishes; two at 248 feet and two 41 at 218 feet in height. Per the Determina tion of No Hazard to Air Navigation by the 42 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) no ai r traffic safety requirements will be 43 required for Phase 1 based on the elevation, location, and description, which includes 44 specific coordinates, heights, frequency (ies ), and power. Phase 2 will require future 45 evaluation by the FAA, and will require a Du el Lighting Red/Medium Intensity Flashing 4650 White system due to increase in height. The FCC registration number is 1274006 and 1 FCC has no specific tower requirements. Th e tower will be designed to meet Pierce 2 County building codes for seismic area D-1 or D-2 and wind velocity exposure “C”. 3 Pierce County considers all of its towers are critical facilities and thus are built to a 4 higher standard because of first responder support. 5

6 Findings: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been conclude d that the proposed 7 project will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and no further 8 NEPA analysis (i.e. Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 9

10 Communication Tower, Permian Basin Regional Planning Commission, Andrews, 11 Texas, November 2011. ( http://www.fema.gov/libr ary/viewRecord.do?id=4918 ) 12

13 The Proposed Action is the construction of a 480-foot guyed wire telecommunications 14

tower that will be located at 9435 East State Highway 115 approximately 20 miles 15 northeast of Andrews, Texas on Highway 115 in Andrews County, Texas. The Andrews 16 Tower site consists of a proposed 48 0-foot guyed telecommunication tower and 17 associated equipment to be located on 50-f oot by 50-foot grassland covered parcel. The 18 proposed telecommunication compound will include: one 12-foot by 16-foot equipment 19 shelter, a standalone emergency backup generator on a 5-foot by 5-foot pad, and 20 associated 5-foot by 10-foot propane tank, a nd control utility board as shown in Figure 21 3. Anchors will be placed at four corners for th e guyed wires. There will be four (4) sets 22 of nine (9) guy wires for a total of 36 wire s. The tower's surface impact area will be less 23

than 0.25 acres. 24

25 Findings: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been conclude d that the proposed 26 project will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and no further 27 NEPA analysis (i.e. Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 28

29 Proposed text: * N11 Federal Assistance for Wi ldfire Hazard Mitigation 30

Actions. Federal assistance for the following wild fire hazard mitigation actions: 31

a. Actions involving the creation of defensible space by the removal 32 or reduction of flammable vegetati on around existing structures for 33 up to 100 feet of the structure; 34

b. Actions involving hazardous fuel reduction proximate to at-risk 35 structures including the sele ctive removal of undergrowth 36 vegetation that is less than 12 inches in diameter through thinning, 37 pruning, limbing, sawing, or br ush cutting, or the removal of 38 downed, dead, or dry v egetation material as part of the overall 39

action. 40

The actions must be limited to less t han 100 acres of vegetation removal either 41 individually or when combined with other reasonably foreseeable private or 42 public actions. 43

44 Rationale and Support for CATEX 45

4651 This is a proposed new CATEX that would leverage FEMA’s exte nsive experience in 1 the evaluation of wildfire mitigation actions. This CATEX is intended to cover certain 2 wildfire mitigation actions under FEMA’s HMA programs and any future DHS grant 3 authority under which such actions would be eligible. Wildfire mitigation actions have 4 been the subject of several EAs within EA s, which have consistently resulted in 5

FONSIs. 6

7

The limitation of 100 acres must account for ac tions that are reasona bly foreseeable to 8 occur that may be undertaken by private entities or local gove rnments, State or Tribal 9 agencies, and Federal agencies. DHS’s experi ence, through FEMA, includes actions that 10 go beyond 100 acres. However, these have typi cally triggered considerations that are 11 more effectively addressed through the EA proc ess, such as a more in depth cumulative 12 impacts analysis, consideration of resources that are not protected by existing federal 13 EP&HP requirements, and public involvement. 14

15 Applicable best management practices woul d depend on the location of the project but 16 may include measures to reduce soil erosion, sediment control meas ures, preservation of 17 an amount of canopy, and avoidance of rookeries, among other things. 18

19

DHS has a CATEX that allows for the rem oval of exotic vegetation but explicitly 20 excludes the application of herbicides. Under this proposed new CATEX, the 21 application of herbicides would be cove red but the potential impacts on natural 22

resources must be addressed. 23

24 Application of this CATEX to a proposed action would require a REC to document 25 alignment with the scope of the CATEX, ev aluation of extraordin ary circumstances, and 26 compliance with other EP&HP requirements. Typically, the issues that DHS encounters 27 with wildfire hazard mitigations actions are related to other EP&HP compliance 28 requirements such as NHPA Section 106, ESA S ection 7, and EO 11988, among others. 29 Comparable DHS CATEX 30

31 (E8) Construction of aquatic and ripari an habitat in streams and ponds on Department32 managed land, using native materials or best natural resource management practices. 33 Examples include, but are not limited to: (a) Installing or repairi ng gabions with stone 34 from a nearby source, (b) Adding brush fo r fish habitat, (c) Stabilizing stream banks 35 through bioengineering techniques, and (d) Removing and controlling exotic 36 vegetation, not including the use of herb icides or non-native biological controls. 37

38 Supporting EAs 39

40 Mill Creek Defensible Space Project, Walla Walla County, Washington, May 2011. 41 ( http://www.fema.gov/media-lib rary/assets/documents/21784 ) 42

43 The Proposed Action would reduce fuels around re sidential structures in the Mill Creek 44 drainage area through vegetation removal. Ar eas targeted for vegetation removal include 45

a 30-foot radius around the main residentia l structure. The 30-foot radius around 217 4652 targeted homes would collectively total 31 acres. Contractors would conduct vegetation 1 removal activities by hand. 2

3 The Firewise program is co-sponsored by the U. S. Forest Service, the U.S. Department 4 of the Interior, and the Nationa l Association of State Forest ers. Firewise guidelines for 5 defensible space would be followed. These guide lines identify the defensible space zone 6

as a 30-foot radius around a structure’s foundation. In some cases, this radius may be 7 expanded by 5 to 10 feet to provide additio nal defensible space around structures that 8 are located on steep slopes. Firewise guidelines for defensible space recommend 9 planting grass and small “islands” of fire-resista nt plants within 30 f eet of structures to 10 prevent the spread of wildfires and minimize the severity of damages. Other landscaping 11 recommendations include trimming trees so th at the lowest branches are 6 to 10 feet 12 above the ground, spacing plants so that the plants or plant canopi es do not touch (with 13 wider spacing along slopes), a nd planting fire- or drought-res istant plants. Removal of 14 all vegetation is not recommended because this could increase soil erosion, especially in 15 the kinds of sloped areas found in much of the project area. A properly maintained 16 defensible space zone protects the structur e from surrounding wildfires and provides a 17 relatively safe area for fire fighters to work (NFPA 2009). 18

19 Mechanical vegetation removal is not pr oposed because many locations have steep 20 slopes, and use of heavy equipment in sloped areas can increase erosion and 21 sedimentation. In most cases, tree and shr ub stumps and roots would not be removed. 22 Site assessments and vegetation management activities would occur between May and 23 October. Participating residents would have the opportunity to pr ovide input prior to 24 vegetation management activities. 25

26 Findings: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been conclude d that the proposed 27 project will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and no further 28 NEPA analysis (i.e. Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 29 Deschutes and Crook Counties Wildfire Mitigation, Oregon, April 2009. 30 ( http://www.fema.gov/libr ary/viewRecord.do?id=3573 ) 31

32 The action would remove excessive vegeta tion through hand thinning, brush cutting, 33 mowing, and other low-impact measures by private contractors on approximately 1,000 34 acres of privately-owned lands. The geogra phic areas targeted fo r wildfire vegetation 35 management include the Ochoco Reser voir, Ochoco West and Powell Butte 36 communities in Crook County and the Awbrey Butte, Awbrey Glenn, Tetherow 37 Crossing and Woodside Ranch communities in Deschutes County. These properties 38 were identified as high-risk in the De schutes and Crook County Natural Hazards 39 Mitigation Plans and individual Community Wildfire Protection Plans. Under the 40 Deschutes County Forester and Crook Count y Fire and Rescue staff direction, each 41 individual property would be assessed to determine the best method of vegetation 42 removal. FEMA funds would be used by th e Counties and private contractors to treat 43 vegetation near roads and driveways, and to haul all debris to local co-generation plants. 44 Private property owners are responsible for vegetation removal on their properties, 45 including labor. However, there is a special needs component to the project for residents 4653 who are physically or financially unable to perf orm the work themselves. In those cases, 1 the private contractors would provide the labo r to remove vegetation within 100 feet of 2 structures to develop defensible space. The Counties anticipate that less than five 3 percent of property owners w ithin the project areas would apply for this assistance. 4

5

Treatment areas would be accessed from ex isting roads and driveways, which are 6 typically gravel or dirt. No improvements to the access roads/driveways would occur. 7 Juniper and sagebrush would be removed fr om the project areas within Crook County, 8 and also from Tetherow Crossing in Deschut es County. Bitterbrush would be removed 9 from all project areas. 10

11

The Counties and contractors would remove all debris to local co-generation plants for 12 disposal, which produce two usef ul forms of energy, electricity and process steam, from 13 a single fuel source. Soil disturbance is not planned. 14

15 Findings: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been conclude d that the proposed 16 project will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and no further 17 NEPA analysis (i.e. Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 18

19 Highlands Estates Wildfire Mitigation Project, Adams County, Idaho, June 2009. 20 ( http://www.fema.gov/libr ary/viewRecord.do?id=3623 ) 21

22 The Proposed Action would remove exce ssive vegetation through hand thinning, 23 pruning, limbing, sawing, or brush cutting by private contractors on approximately 200 24 acres of privately-owned lands . The vegetation to be removed would be mainly brush, 25 with limited amounts of small trees (red fi r and bull pine) less than 12 inches in 26 diameter. Vegetation removal would occur around the perimeter of and within the 27 subdivision. The existing infrastr ucture would be used to rem ove any vegetative debris. 28

The debris from these activities would be chipped and mulched for homeowner use, or 29 otherwise disposed of in a permitted facilit y. Large debris may be used as firewood, and 30 chips would be used by homeowners as mulch. No burning would occur. 31

32 Implementation of the Proposed Action woul d take place using grant funds and Adams 33 County funds to accomplish the following activ ities over a 2-year period: 1) create 34

defensible structures and decrease the risk from wildfire to 16 residences through 35 vegetation management (hand cutting), and 2) increase the effectiveness of similar fuels 36 reduction projects that have occurred in the Meadow Creek development adjacent and 37 below Highlands Estates 38

39 Findings: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been conclude d that the proposed 40 project will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and no further 41 NEPA analysis (i.e. Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 42

43 Proposed text: N12 Federal Assistance for Planting of Indigenous 44 Vegetation 45

4654 Rationale and Support for CATEX 1

2 This proposed CATEX is the same as existing FEMA CATEX (xi). DHS, through 3 FEMA, has funded numerous pr ojects involving the planting of indigenous vegetation, 4 such as planting of grasses for dune and bank stabilization, and pl anting of vegetative 5 buffers for fire hazard reduction purpos es. DHS, through interviews with FEMA 6 Regional Environmental Officers who are very familiar with these types of activities and 7 potential environmental impacts, has dete rmined that it remains appropriate to 8 categorically exclude this type of activity from a higher leve l of NEPA analysis because 9 these actions do not normally have the potenti al to result in significant environmental 10 impacts. FEMA Regional Environmental O fficers indicated that the existing FEMA 11 CATEX is sufficient and that no changes are necessary. 12

13 Proposed text: N13 Provision of the Following Forms of Federal 14
Assistance Under the Stafford Act: 15

a. Unemployment Assistance (§410); 16

b. Individuals and House holds Programs (§408), e xcept for grants that 17 will be used for restoring, repairing or building private bridges, or 18 purchasing mobile homes or other readily fabricated dwellings; 19 c. Food Coupons and Distribution (§412); 20 d. Food Commodities (§413); 21 e. Legal Services (§415); 22 f. Crisis Counseling Assi stance and Training (§416); 23 g. Community Disaster Loans (§417); 24 h. Emergency Communications (§418); 25 i. Emergency Public Transportation (§419); 26 j. Fire Management Assistance (§420) 27

28 Rationale and Support for CATEX 29

30 This proposed CATEX is the same as ex isting FEMA CATEX (xix)(E) through (N). 31 DHS has determined through its experience that it remains appropriate to categorically 32 exclude these activities from a higher level of NEPA analysis because they do not have 33 the potential to result in significant environmental impacts. 34

35 Proposed text: N14 Federal Assistance for Urban Search and Rescue 36 (USR) Activities, Including Deployment of USR Teams 37

38 Rationale and Support for CATEX 39

40 This proposed CATEX is essentially the sa me as existing FEMA CATEX (xviii)(C), 41 with a minor wording change to make it clear that deployment of USR teams is one 42 common type of USR activity. DHS has de termined through its experience that it 43 remains appropriate to categorically exclude these activities from a higher level of 4455 NEPA analysis because they do not normally have the potential to result in significant 1 environmental impacts. 2

3 Comparable FEMA CATEX 4

5 (xviii)(C) Deployment of Urban Search and Rescue teams. 6

7 Proposed text: * N15 Federal Assistance for Di saster Temporary Individual 8 Housing in Private and Commercial Sites. Federal assistance for the 9
installation and/or removal of individual housing units in private or commercial 10 sites, or the development of pre-existing commercial sites or residential facilities 11

that are not located on contaminated si tes for individual temporary housing 12

units. 13

14 Rationale and Support for CATEX 15

16 This proposed CATEX is based on exis ting FEMA CATEX (xix)(D) and FEMA’s 17 extensive experience providi ng housing to disaster victims. Information on FEMA’s 18

authorities related to disaster housing can be found on-line at 19 http://www.fema.gov/housing-resources

. 20

21 “Development of pre-existing commercial sites or residential facilities” includes, but is 22 not limited to, the placement of units in mob ile home sites or recreational vehicle sites 23 that existed prior to a disaster event, re furbishing or rehabil itation of non-historic 24

residential or commercial units for habitation (e.g. apartment buildings), or placement of 25 individuals in cruise ships. The last two are examples of actions within enclosed 26 facilities where existing FEMA CATEX ( xvii) has typically been applied. 27

28 For the purposes of this CATEX, “contaminated sites” are those that contain higher than 29 EPA established thresholds for contaminants (i n parts per million) that either pre-date or 30

were a result of a rel ease associated with the disaster event. Propos als to locate disaster 31 housing on contaminated sites are explicitly excluded from this CATEX and would 32 trigger the need for an EA. 33

34 Application of this CATEX to a proposed action would require a REC to document 35 alignment with the scope of the CATEX, ev aluation of extraordin ary circumstances, and 36 compliance with other EP&HP requirements such as NHPA Section 106, ESA Section 37 7, and EOs 11988 and 11990, among others. 38

39 Comparable FEMA CATEX 40

41 (xix)(D) Temporary Housing [Stafford Act §40 8], except locating multiple mobile homes 42 or other readily fabricated dwellings on sites, other than private residences, not 43 previously used for such purposes. 44

45 Supporting EA 4656 Alternative Housing Pilot Program Perman ent Housing, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, 1 August 2009. ( http://www.fema.gov/libra ry/viewRecord.do?id=3586 ) 2

3 The proposed action by FEMA is to provide permanent housing solutions for disaster 4 victims to address the housing shortages cau sed by the catastrophic effects of Hurricanes 5

Katrina and Rita. 6

7 The proposed action would include land acqui sition and construction of approximately 8 160 permanent single-family units (cottage s) throughout Orleans Parish. The cottages 9

would be scattered throu ghout the Parish and would “fill-in” throughout existing 10 neighborhoods. The proposed group site would consist of single-fam ily cottages, with 11 living areas ranging from 874 square feet to 1,112 square feet. As necessary, the 12 cottages would be built on piers to raise them to the required base flood elevation. The 13 project site would be cleared of all vegeta tion and debris, and then the site would be 14 grubbed. Additional contouring and grading may be required. Driveways would be 15 constructed. A fence would partially enclose the project area. The houses would tie into 16 existing water, and sewer infrastructure curr ently located near each lot site. Utilities 17

would be installed to ea ch individual cottage. 18

19 Findings: Based upon the information in the PEA, it has been concluded that the 20 proposed action will not significantly affect th e quality of the human environment, and 21 no further NEPA analysis (i.e. Environmen tal Impact Statement) is warranted. 22

23 Proposed text: *N16 Federal Assist ance for Disaster Temporary Group 24 Housing of Less than Five (5) Acres. Federal assistance for the placement of 25 disaster temporary group housing, including associated temporary facilities and 26 the tie-in or installation of necessary ut ilities to service the housing units (such 27 as electricity, potable water, and wastewater infrastructu re), that involves less 28 than five (5) acres of ground disturbance on sites that are zoned for housing and 29 that follow best management practices fo r pollution control. This CATEX also 30 covers the conversion of such tempor ary housing to permanent housing when 31

these criteria are met

. 32

33 Rationale and Support for CATEX 34

35 DHS, through FEMA, has extensive experience providing housing to disaster victims. 36

Information on FEMA’s authorities related to disaster housing can be found on-line at 37 http://www.fema.gov/housing-resources . This proposed new CATEX is based on FEMA 38 experience and the results of numerous FE MA EAs. Installation of group housing can 39

include the tie-in or in stallation of necessary utilities to service the housin g units, such as 40 electricity, potable water, and wastewater infr astructure. Temporary facilities associated 41 with temporary group housing include, but are not limited to, ancillary shelters, 42 generators and utilitie s, and storage units. 43

44

This CATEX would cover the installation of temporary group housing and temporary 45 facilities involving less than 5 aces of ground disturbance, as well as the conversion of 4657 such temporary housing into permanent housing. FEMA received statutory authority to 1 provide permanent manufactured hous ing to disaster victims in 2007. 2

3 Application of this CATEX to a proposed action would require a REC to document 4 alignment with the scope of the CATEX, ev aluation of extraordin ary circumstances, and 5 compliance with other EP&HP requirements such as NHPA Section 106, ESA Section 6 7, and EO 11988 and 11990, among others. A REC will also be required prior to the 7 change in designation from temporary to permanent housing. 8

9 Supporting EAs 10

11 Temporary Housing Sites, Minot, Ward County, North Dakota, September 2011. 12 ( http://www.fema.gov/libr ary/viewRecord.do?id=4776 ) 13

14 The proposed action by FEMA is to build temporary, emergency disaster group housing 15 for residents in the vicinity of Minot and Burlington, Ward County, North Dakota, a 16 need that results from severe flooding. 17

18 The proposed project would develop at least one temporary site with a capacity of 150- 19 200 mobile homes, with site occupancy e xpected to not exceed 18 months. The 20 proposed group sites will include developmen t of temporary gravel pads for housing 21 foundations, school bus shelters, mailbox units , gravel and asphalt roadways, and all 22

utilities related to the infrastructure of the community. Access to the sites from 23 surrounding roads will be designe d in coordination with appli cable city and county staff. 24 The mobile homes will be hauled from the site to suitable locations elsewhere (case-by25 case basis) when the temporary housing need e nds. The site will then be seeded or used 26 by the property owner in a manner consiste nt with applicable land use approvals. 27

28 Findings: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been conclude d that the proposed 29 action will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and no further 30 NEPA analysis (i.e. Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 31

32

54 th and Winnie Temporary Community Housin g Site, Galveston, Galveston County, 33 Texas, December 2008. ( http://www.fema.gov/libr ary/viewRecord.do?id=3497 ) 34

35 The proposed action by FEMA is to build em ergency temporary housing for residents in 36 Galveston County as a result of damage from Hurricane Ike. 37

38 The proposed action is the construction of a temporary community-housing site of 39 approximately 14 mobile homes on previously developed land, which would be leased 40 by the General Service Administration. New utilities would be installed in the site, 41 including tie-in of wastewat er, potable water, and elec trical service to existing 42 infrastructure. When the temporary housing n eed has ended, which is not expected to 43 exceed 18 months, the units will be hauled from the site and returned to a FEMA storage 44 yard. The site would then be seeded and rest ored to previous condi tions, to the extent 4558 practicable, and/or used by the landowner in a manner c onsistent with county zoning 1

classification. 2

3 Findings: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been conclude d that the proposed 4 action will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and no further 5 NEPA analysis (i.e. Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 6

7 Longhorn Motocross Temporary Community Housing Site, Ora nge, Orange County, 8 Texas, November 2008. ( http://www.fema.gov/libr ary/viewRecord.do?id=3461 ) 9

10 The proposed action by FEMA is to build em ergency temporary housing for residents in 11 Orange County as a result of damage from Hurricane Ike. 12

13 The proposed action is the construction of a temporary community-housing site of 14 approximately 100 mobile homes on land, which would be leased by the General 15

Service Administration. New utilities would be installed in the site, including tie-in of 16 wastewater, potable water, a nd electrical service to existi ng infrastructure. When the 17 temporary housing need has ended, which is not expected to exceed 24 months, the units 18

will be hauled from the site. The site would then be seeded and restored to previous 19 conditions, to the extent pract icable, and/or site improve ments would remain per the 20

landowners’ interests. 21

22 Findings: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been conclude d that the proposed 23 project will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and no further 24 NEPA analysis (i.e. Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 25

26 Highlands Temporary Mobile Home Community Site, Tunkhannock Township, 27 Wyoming County, Pennsylvania, November 2011. 28 ( http://www.fema.gov/libr ary/viewRecord.do?id=4911 ) 29

30 The proposed action by FEMA is to build em ergency temporary housing for residents in 31 Wyoming County as a result of damage from Tropical Storm Lee. 32

33 The proposed action is the construction of a temporary community-housing site of no 34 more than 48 mobile homes on approximately 8 acres. Site preparation would include 35 clearing vegetation, grading a portion of the s ite, developing interior gravel roads and 36 pads. New utilities would be installed in th e site, including tie-in of wastewater and 37 potable water to existing infrastructure. Electrical lines would be installed and 38 underground electric is currently available to the southeast of the property. When the 39 temporary housing need has ended, which is not expected to exceed 18 months, the units 40

will be hauled from the site. The site would then be reasonably restored to its previous 41

condition in a manner consistent with lo cal zoning and as agreed upon with the 42

landowner. 43

4459 Findings: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been conclude d that the proposed 1 action will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and no further 2 NEPA analysis (i.e. Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 3

4 Alternative Housing Pilot Progr am, Lake Charles Fields 6 th Avenue Group Housing Site, 5 Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, March 2009. 6 ( http://www.fema.gov/libr ary/viewRecord.do?id=3535 ) 7

8 The proposed action by FEMA is to provide permanent housing solutions for disaster 9 victims to address the housing shortages cau sed by the catastrophic effects of Hurricanes 10

Katrina and Rita. 11

12 The proposed action would include land acqui sition and construction on approximately 13 5.0 acres of previously disturbed land located in the eastern portion of the City of Lake 14 Charles, Louisiana. The proposed group site would consist of approximately 34 single15 family dwellings (cottages) with living areas ranging fr om 874 square feet to 1,112 16 square feet. As necessary, the dwellings woul d be built on piers to raise them to the 17 required base flood elevation. The project site would be cleared of all vegetation and 18 debris, and then the site would be grubbe d. Additional contouring and grading may be 19 required. Driveways would be constructed. A fence would partially enclose the project 20

area. The houses would tie into existing water, and sewer infrastructure currently located 21

near each lot site. Utilities would be installed to each individual cottage. 22

23 Findings: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been conclude d that the proposed 24 action will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and no further 25 NEPA analysis (i.e. Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 26

27 Proposed text: N17 Federal Assistance for Development of Plans in 28 Support of Response, Recovery, and Hazard Mitigation Activities. Federal 29 assistance for the development of pl ans for the purpose of preparing for 30 disasters, recovering from disasters, and identifying opportunities for mitigating 31
the effects of future disasters. This incl udes but is not limited to State, Tribal, 32 and local hazard mitigation plans, debris management plans, long-term recovery 33 plans, and disaster housing plans. This CATEX is not applicable to plans associated 34 with specific projects that are reasonably foreseeable to occur and that are not 35 otherwise covered by another CATEX. 36

37 Rationale and Support for CATEX 38

39 This proposed CATEX is derived from exis ting FEMA CATEXs (ii) and (xviii)(E). 40 DHS has determined through its experience that it remains appropriate to categorically 41 exclude these activities from a higher leve l of NEPA analysis because they do not 42 normally have the potential to result in significant environmental impacts. 43

44 DHS funds planning initiatives to address disaster response and recovery, preparedness, 45 and hazard mitigation issues. Typically, th ese planning activities are strategic or 46 programmatic in nature that identify problems within a sp ecified geographic area and 4760 provide a menu of options on how to address these problems. The plans themselves do 1 not guarantee that a specific project will be implemented nor determine if federal 2 funding will be available to implement a par ticular project. However, the plans can be 3 useful in identifying or bounding the a lternatives to re solve the issue. 4

5 This proposed CATEX would not be applicable to plans for specifi c projects that are 6 reasonably foreseeable to occur and that are not otherwise co vered by another DHS 7 CATEX. For example, planning and de signing for a flood protection system for 8 federally-assisted flood hazard reduction acti ons (such as a levee) would not be 9 categorically excluded from NEPA. In thes e situations, an EA or and EIS would be 10 prepared. “Reasonably foreseeable” refers to situations where funding is imminent from 11 either FEMA or any other source, including priv ate, public, or Federal, or where the plan 12 is used to justify fu ture funding decisions. 13

14 Comparable FEMA CATEXs 15

16 (ii) Studies that involve no commitmen t of resources other than manpower and 17 associated funding; 18

19 (xviii)(E) Information and data gathering and re porting efforts in support of emergency 20 and disaster response and recovery and hazard mitigation. 21

22 Proposed text: * N18 Federal Assistance for Cons truction or Installation of 23 Structures, Facilities, or Equipment to Ensure Continuity of Operations. 24
Federal assistance for the construction or installation of measures for the 25 purpose of ensuring the continuity of operations during incidents such as 26 emergencies, disasters, flooding, and power outages involving less than one 27 acre of ground disturbance. Examples include the installa tion of generators, 28 installation of storage tanks of up to 10,000 gallons, installation of pumps, 29 construction of structures to house emergency equipment, and utility line 30

installation. This CATEX covers associated ground disturbing activities, such as 31 trenching, excavation, and vegetation removal of less than once acre, as well as 32 modification of existing structures. 33

34 Rationale and Support for CATEX 35

36 This proposed CATEX would cover Federally- assisted activities a ssociated with the 37

construction or installation of measures that ensure the continuity of operation of 38 facilities owned or managed by non-DHS en tities. It is based on existing FEMA 39 CATEXs (ix), (xvi), and ( xvii). It has been rewri tten to capture recent FEMA 40 experience in the installation of measures to ensure continuity of operations of radio 41 transmitter stations across the country in the event of national emergencies. 42

43 The CATEX would cover ground di sturbing activities, such as trenching, excavation, 44 and vegetation removal of less than once acr e, as well as modification of existing 45

structures. 46

4761 Application of this CATEX to a proposed action would require a REC to document 1 alignment with the scope of the CATEX, ev aluation of extraordinary circumstances, and 2 compliance with other EP&HP requirements such as NHPA Section 106, ESA Section 3 7, and EOs 11988 and 11990, among others. 4

5 Comparable FEMA CATEXS 6

7 (ix) Acquisition, installation, or operation of utility and communication systems that use 8 existing distribution systems or facilities, or currently used infrastructure rights-of-way; 9

10 (xvi) Improvements to exis ting facilities and the constr uction of small scale hazard 11 mitigation measures in existing develope d areas with substantially completed 12 infrastructure, when the immediate project area has already been disturbed, and when 13 those actions do not alter basic functions , do not exceed capacity of other system 14 components, or modify intended land use; provided the operation of the completed 15 project will not, of itself, have an adverse effect on the quality of the human 16

environment; 17

18 (xvii) Actions conducted within enclosed facilities where all airborne emissions, 19 waterborne effluent, external radiation levels, outdoor noise, and solid and bulk waste 20 disposal practices comply with existing Fede ral, state, and local laws and regulations. 21

22 Supporting EAs 23

24 Programmatic Environmental Assessment fo r Integrated Public Alert and Warning 25 System Construction Projects. ( http://www.fema.gov/library /viewRecord.do?id=4174 ) 26

27 Under the proposed action, FEMA would upgrade selected radio stations to ensure that 28 their transmission capabilities are mainta ined for an extended period without the 29 availability of commercial pow er in an event of man-made or natural disaster. Work 30 involved the removal of underground fuel storage tanks (UST) and above ground fuel 31 storage tanks (AST) if the UST/AST was a government fuel tank installed during 32 previous programs and requires replacement. Removal and replacement of existing 33 backup generators on sites where the existi ng generator is not reliable was required. 34

Work also involved the establishment of modular systems and connection of the 35 modular systems with existing power pa nels in building for standby power. 36

37 Some of the actions involved providing a new low power, secondary transmitter system 38 with backup power and supporting fuel storage. The actio ns involved ground 39

disturbance and construction re lated work associated with the creating foundations and 40 the placement of a pre-cast concrete modul e with 35 KW generato r system (approximate 41 size of 10 ft. x 14 ft.), creating foundations and the placement of another pre-cast 42 concrete shelter module with backup tr ansmitter equipment, placement of a fully 43 compliant double walled above ground fuel st orage tank and distribution (fuel storage 44 will range in size from 4,000 gal. to 10,000 ga l.), trenching for underground utilities for 45 commercial power from existing building underground (24 in. deep trench). 4662 The expected size of the total fenced com pound with the new modules and fuel storage 1

was about 40 ft. x 50 ft. Founda tion depths for the modules and fuel tank were between 2 12 in. – 24 in. depending on local frost lines and codes. Projects met applicable storm 3 water prevention requirements (SWPPP) and other environmental management 4 compliance requirements (e.g. SPCC plans, etc.). 5

6

An alternative was evaluated where cons truction, including ground disturbing work, 7 would occur in previously undisturbed portions of the lot where the tran smitter facility is 8

located. Work in these areas would involve removal of vegetation including removal of 9 trees, trenching, excavation, placement of fences (including driving of fence poles in the 10 ground), and displacement of permeable surf aces by the pre-cast concrete modules. 11

12 Findings: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been conclude d that the proposed 13 project will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and no further 14 NEPA analysis (i.e. Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 15

Proposed text: * N19 Federal Assistance for Cl ean-up and Other Actions to 16

Restore Environmental Resources. Federal assistance for clean-up and other 17

actions to restore environmental resource s. to pre-existi ng conditions when 18 resource contamination or damage resu lts from a disaster event and when the 19 clean-up and associated actions are not exempt from NEPA. Examples include 20 the clean- up of underground storage tank releases and above ground releases 21 that affect nearby water bodies or wetlands. 22

23 Rationale and Support for CATEX 24

25 DHS, through FEMA’s disaster response and recovery activities, routinely approves 26 actions of a similar nature, scope, and intens ity to those being proposed in this CATEX, 27 and has applied its existing CATEX (xv) to su ch actions. Examples include the clean-up 28 of underground storage tank releases and above ground releases that affect nearby water 29 body and wetlands. 30

31 Application of this CATEX to a proposed action would require a REC to document 32 alignment with the scope of the CATEX, ev aluation of extraordinary circumstances, and 33 compliance with other EP&HP requirements. 34

35 Comparable FEMA CATEX 36

37 (xv) Repair, reconstruction, restoration, elevation, retrof itting, upgrading to current 38 codes and standards, or replacement of any fa cility in a manner that substantially 39 conforms to the preexisting design, function, and location. 40

41 Professional Opinion 42

43 Ms. Rosemarie Bradley, Ph.D., an Environmental Specialist in the Office of 44 Environmental Planning & Historic Preservation at FEMA Headquarters , provided a 4563 professional opinion to support this proposed CATEX and the determination that the 1 actions contemplated under this CATEX typi cally do not have a si gnificant impact on 2

the human environment. 3

4 Ms. Bradley relied on her knowledge and expe rience of clean up a nd debris operations, 5 including ensuring there was no contamination from staging areas, following disaster 6

events. She served as member of the FEMA NY Debris Task Force and Debris Lead and 7 Debris Team Co-Lead for disaster events, such as the Alabama tornados. Clean up 8 activities are typically necessary when floodw aters inundate storage tanks, resulting in 9 discharges of oil or other materials and thus requiring clean up of the area during 10 disaster recovery. Communities may request FEMA assistance and reimbursement for 11 cleanup activities. Grantees hire licensed contractors, or FEMA mission assigns the 12 Army Corps of Engineers for removal of debr is, some of which can be oil-contaminated. 13 FEMA requires use of approved contractors and disposal lo cations in compliance with 14 RCRA requirements. In Ms. Bradley’s expe rience, clean up activities covered by the 15 proposed CATEX typically return the site to pre-disaster conditi on and do not generate 16 significant environmental impacts. 17

18 In Ms. Bradley’s experience, FEMA CATEX (xv) is typically used for activities 19 contemplated by the proposed new CATEX a nd a REC is always completed for these 20 types of actions to document compliance with all appropriate laws during cleanup, 21 transport, and disposal of oil-contaminated materials. 22

23

Professional Credentials 24

25 The professional credentials of Ms. Bradley are provided below. 26

27

 Education : B.S. Biology. M.S. Environmental Science. PH.D. Environmental 28 Studies, with a concentrati on in environmental policy. 29

 Training : Ms. Bradley has had training in num erous haz-mat related courses and 30 hands-on training during course of st udy and also while employed as an 31 Environmental Analyst and member of the MA DEP Hazardous Materials 32 Emergency Response Team. 33

 Certifications : 40-hr OSHA HAZWoper (past). FEMA FQS certified 34 Environmental Manager 35

 Years of related experience : Ms. Bradley has 23 years of related experience. 36

3764 

## PROPOSED NEW UNIQUE CATEGORICAL 1 

## EXCLUSIONS FOR THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY 2 

## MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) 3

4 The following CATEXs (M1 through M13) ar e proposed new CATEXs that would be 5 available for use only by FEMA and cover the Agency’s non-grant activities and 6 authorities, such as disaster operations and administering the NFIP. These CATEXs 7 would not be available for use by any other DHS Component. 8

9 Proposed text: M1 The following activities in s upport of FEMA’s administration 10 of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP): 11

12 (a) Review of information, prov ision of technical assistance, and 13
classification for i ndividual communities under the Community 14 Rating System (CRS); 15 (b) Approvals and issuance of Letters of Map Change, including 16 Agency comments; 17 (c) *Creation of new flood zones, e xcept establishing new flood zones 18 for areas protected by structural flood control structures or systems 19 or dams; 20 (d) Revisions to Standard Flood Insurance Policy and Group Flood 21 Insurance Policy; 22 (e) Actions associated with inspections and monitoring, and 23 enforcement of Federal, State, Tribal, or local floodplain 24 management codes, standards, or regulations, except for the 25 suspension of communities from the NFIP; 26 (f) *Development and adoption of CRS activities; and 27 (g) Revisions to flood insurance rates and premium schedules. 28

29 Rationale and Support for CATEX 30

31 In 1968, Congress created the NFIP to help provide a means for property owners to 32 financially protect themselves. The NFIP is a voluntary program that offers flood 33 insurance to homeowners, renters, and busin ess owners if their community choses to 34 participate in the NFIP. Participatin g communities agree to adopt and enforce 35

ordinances that meet or exceed FEMA re quirements to reduce the risk of flooding. 36 Flood insurance is one of three major compone nts of the NFIP; the others are floodplain 37 management and flood hazard mapping. FEMA administers the NFIP and has years of 38 experience carrying out the program, but very fe w of its existing CATEXs are specific to 39 this program. Rather, FEMA has used th e four general CATEXs listed below to cover 40 NFIP activities. During an evaluation of the existing FEMA CATEXs, FEMA NEPA 41 practitioners felt it would be useful to de velop CATEXs specific to the NFIP because 42 this program is a distinctive part of FEMA’s mission, and one which is unique in the 43 degree to which Congress has eliminated di scretion in FEMA’s administration of the 4465 program. FEMA has determined that in sign ificant aspects of the NFIP, NEPA does not 1 apply to some actions because there is no discretion on the part of the agency. For 2 example, the enrollment of communities in the NFIP is a non-discretionary response to 3 statutory requirements, regardless of potenti al environmental consequences. On the 4 other hand, FEMA has also determined through experience that the NF IP activities listed 5 in (a) through (g) above, which are actions in which the agency has some degree of 6 discretion, do not have the pot ential for significant impact s on the quality of the human 7 environment and are therefore appropriat e to include as a proposed new CATEX. 8

9 Comparable FEMA CATEXs 10

11 (i) Administrative actions such as personnel actions, travel, procurement of supplies, 12 etc., in support of normal day-to-day activ ities and disaster related activities. 13

14 (ii) Preparation, revision, and adoption of regulations, directives, manuals and other 15 guidance documents related to actions t hat qualify for categorical exclusions. 16

17 (iii) Studies that involve no commitmen t of resources other than manpower and 18 associated funding. 19

20 (iv) Inspection and monitoring activities, gran ting of variances, and actions to enforce 21 Federal, state, or local codes, standards or regulations. 22

23 Review of information, providing tec hnical assistance, and classification for 24

individual communities under the Community Rating System (CRS) 25

26 FEMA reviews requests for the application of criteria under th e NFIP’s Community 27 Rating System (CRS), which is a voluntary incentive program implemented in 1990 that 28 recognizes and encourages community floodplai n management activities that exceed the 29 minimum NFIP requirements. Under the CRS, flood insurance premium rates are 30 discounted to reward community actions that meet the three goals of the CRS, which 31 are: (1) reduce flood damage to insurable property; (2) strengthen and support the 32 insurance aspects of the NFIP; and (3) encourage a comprehensive approach to 33 floodplain management. FEMA has determined through experience that the adoption of 34 these criteria do not have significant imp acts on the human environment. FEMA has 35 relied on its existing CATEX (i) in review ing actions associated with the CRS. 36

37 Approvals and issuance of letters of map change, including Agency comments 38

39 FEMA considers approvals and issuances of le tters of map change to have no significant 40 impact to the human environment. As the agency in charge of the NFIP, FEMA has 41 extensive experience conducti ng studies of maps related to the NFIP. FEMA has 42 determined that approvals and issuances of le tters of map changes, which are the results 43 of FEMA’s studies, are similar in nature, scope, and intensit y to other studies conducted 44 within FEMA that similarly do not invol ve a commitment of resources beyond funding 45 manpower. Therefore, FEMA has relied on its existing CATEX (iii) to exclude these 4666 activities from further NEPA review. The proposed CATEX would formalize the 1 practice of categorically ex cluding these activities under FE MA’s existing regulations. 2

3 The CATEX would cover Agency comments to issuance of Conditional Letters of Map 4 Revision (CLOMR). These are comments th e Agency provides to a proposed action on 5 whether the proposed action would work as intended. It is FEMA’s position that 6

issuance of comments do not Federalize th e underlying action under NEPA. FEMA has 7 no discretionary authority over the proposed project and the proponent may choose to 8 ignore FEMA’s comment and proceed with th e action. Although there are consequences 9 for the NFIP participating community for a llowing activities that require CLOMRs to 10 proceed without them, FEMA does not have en forcement authority over those activities 11

themselves. 12

13 Creation of new flood zones, except es tablishing new flood zones for areas 14 protected by flood control stru ctures or systems or dams (*) 15

16 Flood zones are geographic areas of the Unite d States that FEMA has defined according 17 to varying levels of flood risk and type of flooding. These zones are depicted on a 18 published Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) or Flood Hazard Boundary Map (FHBM) 19 (see https://msc.fema.gov ). Through its years of expe rience establishing new flood 20 zones, FEMA has determined that this activ ity does not cause significant impacts on the 21 quality of the human environment. Economic impacts are the most frequent impacts 22 associated with the creation and application of new flood zones. However, as specified 23 in the CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1508.14), socioeconomic considerations in of 24 themselves do not trigger the need fo r a higher level of NEPA analysis. 25

26 This proposed CATEX does not cover the es tablishment of new flood zones for areas 27 protected by flood control systems or struct ures or areas behind dams. The proposed 28 development of a flood zone for these area s would trigger a higher level of NEPA 29 analysis in an EA or and EIS that takes into account public involvement, development of 30 alternatives, and an evaluation of potential environmental impacts. 31

32 FEMA is aware that extraordinary circumst ances could arise duri ng the creation of new 33 flood zones and require a higher level of envi ronmental review. For this reason, FEMA 34 is requiring documentation in a REC whenever new flood zones are created to ensure 35 the action is appropriately categorically excluded. 36

37 Supporting EA 38

39 Regulations Implementing Section 928 of the Housing and Community Development 40 Act of 1992, Public Law 102-550, Washington D.C. May 1994. 41

42 The proposed rule will revise the NFIP regul ations to establish a new flood insurance 43 rate zone for areas designated as flood control restoration zones on NFIP maps. It would 44 also establish a minimum of floodplain ma nagement requirements and would provide 45 regulatory guidance for implementing statut ory requirements cont ained in P.L. 102-550, 4667 including procedures to iden tify and map areas as flood control restoration zones. The 1 purpose of the amendment is to permit management requirements and to use flood 2 insurance rates appropriate to the temporary nature of flood hazards during the period 3 when a flood protection system no longer pr ovides 100-year flood protection until it is 4

restored. The flood control restoration zone designation is a te mporary designation and 5

is of limited duration. 6

7 The proposed action would revise exis ting floodplain management, mapping, and 8 insurance regulations of the NF IP to provide for a new flood insurance rate zone (known 9

as the flood control restoration zone, Zone AR). The revision is necessary to implement 10 the provisions of Section 928 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992, 11 Public Law 102-550, which amended Section 1307 on the National Flood Insurance Act 12 of 1968, by creating the flood control restor ation zone. The proposed action will 13 provide amendments and will revise 44 CFR Parts 59, 60, 64, 65, 70 and 75. 14

15 Findings: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been conclude d that the proposed 16 action will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and no further 17 NEPA analysis (i.e. Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 18

19 Revisions to Standard Flood Insurance Policy and Group Flood Insurance Policy 20

21 The Standard Flood Insurance Policy and Group Flood Insurance Policy are established 22 and revised through FEMA regulations. FEMA typically relies on its existing CATEX 23 (i) and (ii) for revisions to the Stan dard Flood Insurance Policy and Group Flood 24 Insurance Policy because these are administra tive actions that do not have the potential 25 for significant impacts on the human environment. 26

27 Actions associated with inspections and monitoring, and enforcement of 28 Federal, State, Tribal, or local floo dplain management codes, standards, or 29 regulations, except for the suspensi on of communities from the NFIP 30

31 This language is similar to FEMA’s ex isting CATEX (iv). The proposed CATEX 32

covers FEMA’s enforcement actions under the NFIP such as conducting community 33 assistance calls, community assistance vis its, and placing communities in probation in 34

the NFIP. 35

36 The language was modified by broadening the fo cus to all actions associated with these 37

activities instead of on the activities them selves. FEMA enforces its floodplain 38 management standards at the community level, but does not issue local floodplain 39 development permits or carry out local floodplain management activities. NFIP 40 participating communities are expected to engage in these activities to meet the 41 program’s minimum criteria. FEMA does not issue variances for floodplain 42 management requirements at the community level either. However, FEMA develops 43 guidance, policies, and regulations establishing the standa rds and criteria on these issues 44 for the participating communities; this CATEX covers these FEMA actions. 45

4668 Development and adoption of CRS activities (*) 1

2 FEMA has treated the development and adop tion of CRS activities as administrative 3 actions falling within the scope of existi ng FEMA CATEX (i), and FEMA maintains 4 that the action of establishing activities for credit in the CRS does not trigger 5 significance under NEPA. However, in recogni tion of the potential negative indirect 6

effects of some activities on th e natural and beneficial func tions of floodplains, FEMA is 7 separating this activity from other administ rative actions and requiring the development 8

of a REC to determine whether there are particular activitie s within the CRS that would 9 trigger extraordinary circumstances and warrant a higher level of NEPA review. 10

11 Revisions to flood insurance rates and premium schedules 12

13

FEMA establishes flood insurance rates and premium schedules thr ough its regulations. 14 FEMA has experience adjusti ng flood insurance rates and premium schedules without 15 creating significant impacts on the human e nvironment. These activities are revenue 16 neutral and do not, in and of themselves, en courage development in floodplains. Given 17 FEMA’s experience, FEMA is proposing to li mit the proposed CATEX to these types of 18 rate adjustments. 19

20 Insurance rates and premium schedules are revised and adopted through regulations, and 21 are therefore similar in nature, scope, and in tensity to other program requirements within 22

FEMA. 23

24 Proposed text: M2 Transportation and prepositioning of assets in preparation 25 for national emergencies and disasters. 26

27 Rationale and Support for CATEX 28

29 FEMA’s experience has been that the transportation and prepositioning of assets in 30 preparation for national emergencies and di sasters do not individually or cumulatively 31 have the potential to result in signifi cant impacts on the quality of the human 32 environment. These types of actions are si milar in nature to actions undertaken under 33 Section 402 of the Stafford Act, which are statutorily excluded fr om NEPA. When not 34 statutorily excluded, FEMA has applied its ex isting CATEX (vi) to these activities. 35

36 Comparable FEMA CATEX 37

38 (vi) Procurement of goods and services for support of day-to-day and emergency 39 operational activities, and the temporary storage of goods other than hazardous 40 materials, so long as the storage occurs on previously disturbed land or in existing 41 facilities. 42

43 Proposed text: M3 Urban Search and Rescue activiti es, including deployment 44
of USR teams. 45

4669 Rationale and Support for CATEX 1

2 This CATEX is essentially the same as ex isting FEMA CATEX (xv iii)(C), with a minor 3 wording change to make it clear that depl oyment of USR teams is one common type of 4 USR activity. These are activities taken in support of emergency and disaster response 5 and recovery operations that FEMA experi ence has shown do not do not individually or 6 cumulatively result in significant impacts on the quality of the human environment. 7 Therefore, FEMA has determined that it re mains appropriate to categorically exclude 8 this type of activity from a higher level of NEPA analysis. 9

10 Comparable FEMA CATEX 11

12 (xviii)(C) Deployment of Urban Search and Rescue Teams. 13

14 Proposed text: M4 Emergency Communications (Stafford Act §418). 15

16 Rationale and Support for CATEX 17

18 This CATEX is the same as existing FEMA CATEX (xix)(L). These are activities taken 19 in support of emergency and disaster res ponse and recovery operations that FEMA 20 experience has shown do not do not individually or cumulatively have the potential to 21 result in significant impacts on the quality of the human environment. Therefore, FEMA 22 has determined that it remains appropriate to categorically exclude this type of activity 23 from a higher level of NEPA analysis. 24

25 Proposed text: M5 Emergency Public Transporta tion (Stafford Act §419). 26

27 Rationale and Support for CATEX 28

29 This CATEX is the same as existing FEMA CATEX (xix)(M). These are activities 30 taken in support of emergency and disaster response and recovery operations that FEMA 31 experience has shown do not do not individually or cumulatively have the potential to 32 result in significant impacts on the quality of the human environment. Therefore, FEMA 33 has determined that it remains appropriate to categorically exclude this type of activity 34 from a higher level of NEPA analysis. 35

36 Proposed text: M6 Lease of pre-existing structures and facilities for disaster 37 operations (e.g. Joint Field Offices, Ar ea Field Offices, Disaster Recovery 38 Centers) located out of floodplains, histor ic properties, or c ontaminated sites. 39

40 Rationale and Support for CATEX 41

42

FEMA has disaster lease author ity, which it uses to lease fa cilities for disaster operations 43 such as joint field offices, area field offices , and disaster recovery centers. FEMA has 44 used its existing CATEX (xvii) for these types of activities. Existing DHS CATEXs 45 (B3), (C1) and (C2) also support this new CATEX. FE MA has determined through 4670 experience that these lease activities do not individually or cumulatively have the 1 potential to result in significant impacts on the quality of the human environment. 2

3 Comparable CATEXS 4

5
DHS CATEXs 6

7 (B3) Proposed activities and operations to be conducted in an existing structure that 8 would be compatible with and similar in scope to its ongoing func tional uses and would 9 be consistent with previous ly established safety levels and in compliance with applicable 10 Federal, tribal, state, or local requ irements to protect the environment. 11

12 (C1) Acquisition of an interest in real pr operty that is not within or adjacent to 13 environmentally sensitive areas, including in terests less than a fee simple, by purchase, 14 lease, assignment, easement, condemnati on, or donation, which does not result in a 15 change in the functional use of the property. 16

17 (C2) Lease extensions, renewals, or succeedi ng leases where there is no change in the 18 facility's use and all environmental oper ating permits have been acquired and are 19

current. 20

21
FEMA CATEX 22

23 (xvii) Actions conducted within enclosed facilities where all airborne emissions, 24 waterborne effluent, external radiation levels, outdoor noise, and solid and bulk waste 25 disposal practices comply with existing Fede ral, state, and local laws and regulations. 26

27 Proposed text: * M7 Lease of pre-existing structur es and facilities for disaster 28 operations (e.g. Joint Field Offices, Ar ea Field Offices, Disaster Recovery 29 Centers) located within floodplains, histor ic properties, or contaminated sites. 30

31 Rationale and Support for CATEX 32

33

FEMA has disaster lease author ity, which it uses to lease fa cilities for disaster operations 34 such as joint field offices, area field offices , and disaster recovery centers. FEMA has 35 used its existing CATEX (xvii) for these types of activities. Existing DHS CATEXs 36 (B3), (C1) and (C2) also support this new CATEX. FE MA has determined through 37 experience that these lease activities do not individually or cumulatively have the 38 potential to result in significant impacts on the quality of the human environment. 39

40 Application of this CATEX to a proposed action would require a REC to document 41 alignment with the scope of the CATEX, ev aluation of extraordinary circumstances, and 42 compliance with other EP&HP requirement s such as NHPA Section 106 and 44 CFR 43 Part 9, among others. 44

45 Comparable CATEXS 4671 DHS CATEXs 1

2 (B3) Proposed activities and operations to be conducted in an existing structure that 3 would be compatible with and similar in scope to its ongoing func tional uses and would 4 be consistent with previous ly established safety levels and in compliance with applicable 5 Federal, tribal, state, or local requ irements to protect the environment. 6

7 (C1) Acquisition of an interest in real pr operty that is not within or adjacent to 8 environmentally sensitive areas, including in terests less than a fee simple, by purchase, 9 lease, assignment, easement, condemnati on, or donation, which does not result in a 10 change in the functional use of the property. 11

12 (C2) Lease extensions, renewals, or succeedi ng leases where there is no change in the 13 facility's use and all environmental oper ating permits have been acquired and are 14

current. 15

16
FEMA CATEX 17

18 (xvii) Actions conducted within enclosed facilities where all airborne emissions, 19 waterborne effluent, external radiation levels, outdoor noise, and solid and bulk waste 20 disposal practices comply with existing Fede ral, state, and local laws and regulations. 21

22 Proposed text: * M8 Development of temporary s helter or housing for first 23 responders and Federal disaster personnel involving less than 10 acres of 24 ground disturbance in previously develo ped or disturbed areas and that follow 25 best management practices for pollution control. 26

27 Rationale and Support for CATEX 28

29 FEMA has the authority to develop camps and temporary facilities to house first 30 responders and Federal disaster workers. Thes e temporary facilities would be located in 31 previously developed or dist urbed areas and may result in temporary impacts on the 32 environment, but would not have long-term or significant impacts. 33

34 Application of this CATEX to a proposed action would require a REC to document 35 alignment with the scope of the CATEX, ev aluation of extraordinary circumstances, and 36 compliance with other EP&HP requirements such as NHPA Section 106, ESA Section 37 7, and 44 CFR Part 9, among others. 38

39 Supporting EA 40

41 Responder Support Camp, Minot, North Dakota, July 2011. 42 ( http://www.fema.gov/libr ary/viewRecord.do?id=4769 ) 43

4472 The project purpose is to provi de shelter for responders, ac cessible to the Minot, Ward 1 County area. The need is a direct result of no available shelter for responders within a 2 150 mile radius of the Minot, Ward County area. 3

4 In considering the "range of reasonable altern atives," efforts were made to utilize sites 5 identified by the USACE as potential locations for tempor ary housing. However, it was 6 determined that the number one priority is to meet the temporary housing need of the 7 disaster victims. Therefore, only the Minot site was availa ble as a viable site for the 8

camp. 9

10 The site consisted of approximately 10 acres of land owned by the City of Minot. The 11 site is bordered on the east by 42nd Avenue, and by agricultural la nd on the other three 12

sides. The terrain is esse ntially flat with change in elevation from 1617' to 1620' WGS13 84. The site is disturbed ground with no cover and was previously used as a pipe staging 14 area for the City of Minot. The City of Minot provided FEMA with a Memorandum of 15 Understanding for the use of the land. 16

17 This project involved providi ng base camp support services inclusive of mobilization, 18 site preparation, installation, base camp ma nagement and operation, and demobilization 19

as set forth herein and in task orders. Cont ractor shall have the ability to provide two 20 concurrent base camps. Cont ractor services include: 21

22

 Base camp design; 23

 Site preparation; 24

 Installation and maintenance of all contractor provided equipment; and 25

 All services necessary to effectively and efficiently manage and operate the base 26

camp. 27

28

The contractor shall house all authorized camp occupants wi th tents or modular units, 29 equip tents and other facilit ies with air conditioning and heating (HVAC) and leveled 30 plywood floors (or equivalent) as well as provide bedding, meal services, kitchen, 31 dining hall, limited recreation facilities, ope rations center, medical unit, refrigerated 32 trucks, shower units, hand wash units, potab le (drinking) water, water purification and 33 manifold distribution systems, toilets, on-site manifold distribution of black and grey 34 water and associated on-site sanitation syst ems, complete laundry service, industrial 35 generators, and light towers. 36

37 The site is currently hard-packed dirt that would require some re-surfacing to prevent 38 mud issues during rain/snow events. A sa fety fence will also be installed and 39 maintained around the camp perimeter. 40

41

Site Selection Process: 42

43 In order to expedite the site selection process, FEMA and USACE staff reviewed 44 available aerial photos and maps, conducted site reconnaissance field surveys, and 45

contacted state and local offi cials to identify potential site s. Factors considered in 4673 choosing a site include: site topography, property owner willi ngness, past land use, if it 1 was already planned for development, acce ss to existing utilities, and engineering 2 feasibility. 3

4 Findings: Based upon the results of the EA, it has been conclude d that the proposed 5 project will not significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and no further 6 NEPA analysis (i.e. Environmental Impact Statement) is warranted. 7

8 Proposed text: *M9 Storage of assets immediately after a disaster, including 9 development of temporary staging areas involving less than 10 acres of ground 10 disturbance in previously developed or disturbed areas and that follow best 11 management practices for pollution control. 12

13 Rationale and Support for CATEX 14

15 This proposed CATEX is based on existing FEMA CATEX (vi). The wording has been 16 revised to clarify that ground di sturbing activities associated with the storage of assets 17

are included in the CATEX. FE MA has determined through experience that it remains 18 appropriate to categorically exclude thes e activities from a higher level of NEPA 19 analysis because they do not individually or cumulatively have the potential to result in 20 significant impacts on the quality of the human environment. 21

22 Application of this CATEX to a proposed action would require a REC to document 23 alignment with the scope of the CATEX, ev aluation of extraordinary circumstances, and 24 compliance with other EP&HP requirements such as NHPA Section 106, ESA Section 25 7, and 44 CFR Part 9, among others. 26

27 Comparable FEMA CATEX 28

29 (vi) Procurement of goods and services for support of day-to-day and emergency 30 operational activities, and the temporary storage of goods other than hazardous 31 materials, so long as the storage occurs on previously disturbed land or in existing 32 facilities. 33

34 Proposed text: M10 Activation of response and recovery frameworks and 35 operations (e.g. National Response Fram ework, National Disaster Recovery 36 Framework, National Response Coordi nation Center, Regional Response 37 Coordination Center, Emergency Res ponse Teams, Incident Management 38 Assistance Teams, Emergency Suppor t Functions, Recovery Support 39 Functions). 40

41 Rationale and Support for CATEX 42

43 FEMA engages in a variety of planning a nd administrative actions in support of 44 emergency and disaster preparedness, res ponse and recovery, and hazard mitigation. 45 The Agency has had CATEXs covering these ac tivities since its inception. After a 4674 careful evaluation, FEMA has determined th at these activities remain appropriately 1 categorically excluded from a higher level of NEPA review and that having CATEXs for 2

these activities is critical to carrying out the Agency mission. 3

4 This proposed CATEX is based on existing FEMA CATEXs (xviii)(A) and (B). It is 5 being expanded to cover additional st atutory mandates and authorities and 6 administrative changes (e.g., organizational, name) since 1996. Information about these 7 various response and recovery frameworks and operations can be found on the FEMA 8 website (for example, see http://www.fema.gov/national-di saster-recovery-framework ; 9 http://www.fema.gov/national-response-framework ). 10

11 Comparable FEMA CATEXs 12

13 (xviii)(A) Activation of the Emergency Suppor t Team and convening of the Catastrophic 14 Disaster Response Group at FEMA headquarters. 15

16 (xviii)(B) Activation of the Regional Oper ations Center and deployment of the 17 Emergency Response Team, in whole or in part. 18

19 Proposed text: M11 Information and data gathering and reporting in support of 20 emergency and disaster response and recovery activities, including ground and 21 aerial reconnaissance and structure inspection. 22

23 Rationale and Support for CATEX 24

25 This proposed CATEX combines existing FEMA CATEXs (xviii)(D) and (E). FEMA 26 has determined through experience that it re mains appropriate to categorically exclude 27 these activities from a higher level of NEPA an alysis because they do not individually or 28 cumulatively have the potential to result in significant impacts on the quality of the 29

human environment. 30

31 Comparable FEMA CATEXs 32

33 (xviii)(D) Situation assessment, incl uding ground and aerial reconnaissance. 34

35 (xviii)(E) Information and data gathering and re porting efforts in support of emergency 36 and disaster response and recovery and hazard mitigation. 37

38 Proposed text: M12 Development of plans by FEMA for the purpose of 39 preparing for disasters, recovering from disasters, and ident ifying opportunities 40 for mitigating the effects of future di sasters; and the issuance of national 41 frameworks, doctrines, guidance, standard operating procedures, and 42 handbooks for the coordination of Federal, State, local, and private disaster 43 response, recovery, and hazard mitigation. This CATEX is not applicable to 44 plans associated with specific situations or projects that are reasonably 45
foreseeable to occur and that are not otherwise covered by another CATEX. 46

4775 Rationale and Support for CATEX 1

2 FEMA engages in a variety of planning a nd administrative actions in support of 3 emergency and disaster preparedness, res ponse and recovery, and hazard mitigation. 4 The Agency has applied CATEXs to these ac tivities since its inception. After a careful 5 evaluation, FEMA has determined that it re mains appropriate to categorically exclude 6 these activities from a higher level of NEPA analysis and that having CATEXs for these 7 activities is critical to carry ing out the Agency mission. 8

9 FEMA has relied on its existing CATEXs (i), ( ii), and (iii) to develop documents for the 10 coordination of emergency preparedness, re sponse, and disaster recovery activities 11

without further NEPA review because these ac tions are administrative in nature. These 12 are planning documents that do not result in a commitment of resources beyond staff 13

time. 14

15 FEMA requires Tribes, states, and local entities to engage in various forms of planning 16 as a condition of receiving FEMA assistance (e.g. hazard mitigation plans). FEMA also 17 funds these planning initiatives and sometimes engages in these activi ties as part of the 18 disaster recovery process. Typically, these planning activitie s are strategic or 19 programmatic in nature that identify problems within an area and provide a menu of 20 options on how to address these problems. The plans themselves do not guarantee that 21 funding for a particular projec t will be provided or that a project will be implemented, 22 but the plans can be useful in identifying or bounding the alternat ives to resolve the 23

issue. 24

25 This CATEX would not be applicable to plans for specific situations or projects that are 26 reasonably foreseeable to occur and that ar e not otherwise covere d by another CATEX. 27 For example, planning and designing for a flood protection system not covered by the 28

CATEX for flood hazard reduction actions (such as a levee) would not be categorically 29 excluded from NEPA. In these situations, an EA would be needed at a minimum. 30 “Reasonably foreseeable” refers to situations where funding is imminent from either 31 FEMA or any other source, including private, public, or Federal, or where the plan is 32 used to justify future funding decisions. 33

34 Comparable CATEXs 35

36
FEMA CATEXs 37

38 (i) Administrative actions such as personnel actions, travel, procurement of supplies, 39 etc., in support of normal day-to-day activ ities and disaster related activities. 40

41 (ii) Preparation, revision, and adoption of regulations, directives, manuals, and other 42 guidance documents related to actions t hat qualify for categorical exclusions. 43

44 (iii) Studies that involve no commitmen t of resources other than manpower and 45 associated funding. 46

4776 DHS CATEXs 1

2 (A3) Promulgation of rules, issuance of ru lings or interpretations, and the development 3 and publication of policies, orders, directiv es, notices, procedures, manuals, advisory 4 circulars, and other guidance documents of th e following nature: (a) Those of a strictly 5 administrative or procedural nature; (b) Those that impl ement, without substantive 6 change, statutory or regulatory requiremen ts; (c) Those that implement, without 7 substantive change, procedures, manuals, and other guidance documents; (d) Those that 8 interpret or amend an existing regulation w ithout changing its envir onmental effect; (e) 9 Technical guidance on safety and security ma tters; or, (f) Guidance for the preparation 10 of security plans. 11 (A4) Information gathering, data analysis and processing, information dissemination, 12 review, interpretation, and development of documents. If any of these activities result in 13 proposals for further action, those proposal s must be covered by an appropriate 14 CATEX. Examples include but are not limit ed to: (a) Document mailings, publication 15 and distribution, training and informati on programs, historical and cultural 16 demonstrations, and public affairs actions. (b) Studies, reports, proposals, analyses, 17 literature reviews; computer modeli ng; and non-intrusive intelligence gathering 18

activities. 19

20 Proposed text: * M13 Construction or installation of structures, facilities, or 21 equipment for the purpose of ensuring the continuity of operations during 22 incidents such as emergencies, disaster s, flooding, and power outages involving 23 less than one acre of ground disturbance. Examples include the installation of 24 generators, installation of storage tanks of up to 10,000 gallons, installation of 25 pumps, construction of structures to house emergency equipment, and utility line 26

installation. 27

28 Rationale and Support for CATEX 29

30 This proposed new CATEX is intended to cover activities a ssociated with the 31

construction or installation of measures that ensure the continuity of operation of 32 facilities owned or managed by FEMA. For rationale and suppor t for this proposed 33 CATEX, see the information provided fo r proposed CATEX N18 under the preceding 34

section on Federal assistance activities. 35