Final Draft Environmental Assessment Training and Decontamination Equipment Storage Facility Paris, Illinois November 2006 1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Project Authority 1 1.2 Project Location 2 1.3 Purpose and Need 3 2. ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS 4 2.1 Alternative 1 – No Action 4 2.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 4 2.3 Alternative 3 – Action Alternative 5 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 6 3.1 Physical Environment 6 3.1.1 Geology, Seismicity and Soils 6 3.1.2 Water Resources and Water Quality 10 3.1.3 Floodplain Management (Executive Order 11988) 11 3.1.4 Air Quality 12 3.2 Ecological Environment 13 3.2.1 Terrestrial and Aquatic Environment 13 3.2.2 Wetlands (Executive Order 11990) 15 3.2.3 Threatened and Endangered Species 16 3.3 Hazardous Materials 18 3.4 Socioeconomics 19 3.4.1 Zoning and Land Use 19 3.4.2 Visual Resources 20 3.4.3 Noise 21 3.4.4 Public Services and Utilities 22 3.4.5 Traffic and Circulation 22 3.4.6 Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898) 23 3.4.7 Safety and Security 24 3.5 Cultural Resources 25 3.5.1 Historic Architecture 26 3.5.2 Archaeological Resources 27 3.5.3 Tribal Coordination and Religious Sites (Executive Order 13175) 28 3.6 Summary of Affected Environment 28 4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 31 4.1 Public Notification 31 5. MITIGATION MEASURES AND PERMITS 31 5.1 Mitigation 31 5.2 Permits 32 6. CONSULTANTS AND REFERENCES 32 7. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS 34 8. LIST OF PREPARERS 34 9. LIST OF DISTRIBUTION 35 APPENDICES Appendix A - Figures Figure 1 Regional Map Figure 2 Locator Map Figure 3 Project Area Figure 4 Proposed Action/Alternative Action Location Figure 5 Floor Plan - Proposed/Alternative Action Figure 6 NRCS Soil Map, Paris, Edgar County, Illinois Figure 7 Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map for Paris, Edgar County, Illinois Figure 8 National Wetlands Inventory Map for Paris, Edgar County, Illinois Appendix B - Acronyms Appendix C - Agency Correspondence Figure 1 Illinois Department of Agriculture Figure 2 Department of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Figure 3 Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Figure 4 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Figure 5 Illinois Department of Natural Resources Figure 6 City of Paris Figure 7 Edgar County Commissioners Figure 8 Illinois Historic Preservation Agency Figure 9 Petition Requesting Amendment of the City of Paris Zoning Ordinance Figure 10 Paris Plan Commission Meeting Schedule and Minutes Figure 11 Paris City Council Minutes Appendix D - Public Notice Appendix E - EDR NEPA Check Appendix F - EDR Radius Map with GeoCheck Appendix G - Photographs Final Draft Environmental Assessment Training and Decontamination Equipment Storage Facility Paris, Illinois November 2006 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Authority In 1985, Congress passed Public Law 99-145, mandating the destruction of chemical agent hazards like that found at the Newport Chemical Depot (NECD), Newport, Indiana and the seven other chemical storage installations around the country. The NECD is located approximately two miles south of Newport, Indiana and approximately twenty (20) miles northeast of Paris, Illinois. The NECD produced the U.S. stockpile of the chemical nerve agent VX. The plant produced approximately 4,400 tons of VX during operations between 1961 and 1968. A two-phase demolition project began in 1998 with completion scheduled for 2007. The facility will destroy 1,269 tons, approximately 4.1%, of the nation's original chemical stockpile using a low-pressure, low-temperature neutralization process, followed by post-treatment at a commercial off-site facility. In 1988, the U.S. Army and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) jointly developed the Chemical Stockpile and Emergency Preparedness (CSEP) Program to ensure that communities in the immediate vicinity of the depots are capable of providing maximum protection from chemical agent hazards. The CSEP Program provides off-post preparedness funding and technical assistance for the development and implementation of emergency planning and response, public education and warning and communications systems to protect the public in areas that could be affected in the event of an accident/incident involving chemical agents like that stored at the NECD. The Edgar County Emergency Services & Disaster Agency (ESDA) has been given $175,000 for the fiscal year 2005 for construction of a Training and Decontamination Equipment Storage (TDES) Facility in Paris, Illinois. Funding for construction of the proposed TDES Facility has been provided by FEMA and the U.S. Army through the CSEP program and is to be granted by the Illinois Emergency Management Agency (IEMA) who in coordination with FEMA determines each community's CSEP needs. The TDES Facility is to be constructed on a project site that provides adequate space and is strategically located to provide enhanced and cost effective emergency training and services to protect the citizens of Paris and those people in the surrounding rural area who live and work in the immediate vicinity of the depot. The Proposed Action site is owned by the City of Paris. The property is comprised of 18.86 acres and is irregular in shape, measuring approximately 820 feet (north to south) by 435 feet (south end) at its narrowest and 930 feet at its widest (north end). The Proposed Action site is an undeveloped parcel, used in the past as a settling basin for sediments/silt removed from nearby Twin Lakes. According to Mr. Steve Wirth, the new Paris Fire Chief who has been with the Department for approximately 25 years, no fill material has been placed within the footprint of the proposed TDES Facility location. The fill material that is present on the eastern portion of the Proposed Action site is clean demolition debris. That material was not placed on the Proposed Action site in association with the construction of the proposed TDES Facility. At present, there is not adequate storage for emergency decontamination equipment and the existing fire station is too small to host emergency response personnel training. Construction of the proposed TDES Facility will provide the necessary decontamination equipment storage space and classrooms for emergency personnel training. The decontamination equipment storage and emergency personnel classroom training areas are essential elements of the overall plan for responding to an accident/incident at the NECD. The proposed TDES Facility at this location would meet the needs of the Paris Fire Department (PFD) (i.e., parking, emergency response training and decontamination equipment storage). In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing the NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500 through 1508), and FEMA regulations for NEPA compliance (44 CFR Part 10), FEMA must fully understand and consider the environmental consequences of actions proposed for federal funding. The purpose of this Environmental Assessment (EA) is to meet FEMA’s responsibilities under NEPA and to determine whether to prepare a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or an Environment Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed project. 1.2 Project Location Edgar County is located in central eastern Illinois along the north-western edge of the Wabash River Valley. It is bordered to the northwest by Champaign County, to the south by Clark County, to the west by Coles and Douglas Counties, to the north by Vermilion County, and to the east by Vermillion and Vigo Counties of the State of Indiana (see Figure 1 of Appendix A). Paris is situated in the south central portion of Edgar County, approximately eight (8) miles west of the Illinois/Indiana border and approximately fifteen (15) miles west of the Wabash River. The cities of Champaign and Urbana, Illinois are located approximately forty five (45) miles northwest of Paris and the city of Terre Haute, Indiana is located approximately twenty five (25) miles southeast of Paris (see Figure 2 of Appendix A). The smaller communities of Chrisman, Illinois and Marshall, Illinois are located approximately thirteen (13) miles north and fifteen (15) miles south, respectively. The proposed project site is located on the northwest side of Paris, just east of Cherry Point Road (County Highway 13) and south of Blackhawk Park. An address for the project site has not been assigned yet. The proposed TDES Facility will be located in the southwest portion of the parcel (see Figure 3 of Appendix A). The Alternative Action site is located just south of and along East 1200th Road (Work Camp Road), west of the CSX railroad and north of Twin Lakes, approximately one mile north of the Proposed Action site. The Action Alternative site does not have an assigned address (see Figure 3 of Appendix A). 1.3 Purpose and Need As indicated above, the major metropolitan cities of Champaign and Urbana, Illinois and Terre Haute, Indiana are located approximately forty-five (45) miles northwest and twenty five (25) miles southeast of Paris, Illinois, respectively. The smaller cities of Chrisman, Illinois and Marshall, Illinois are located approximately thirteen (13) miles north and approximately fifteen (15) miles south of Paris, Illinois, respectively (see Figure 2 of Appendix A). The project area is located within the incorporated limits of the City of Paris, Illinois. The 2000 U.S. Census population of Paris, Illinois was 9,077. The objective of the U.S. Army/FEMA CSEP Program is to enhance emergency response efforts aimed at protecting the local communities from an accident/incident related to the chemical agents stored at U.S. Army Chemical Depots. Through the CSEP Program, FEMA provides grants to the State of Illinois, the local governments and tribal governments to fund emergency preparedness planning and related projects. The City of Paris is located approximately twenty (20) miles southwest of NECD. While the City of Paris does not fall within the potential influence of the chemical agent destruction activities being conducted at the NECD, the citizens of the City of Chrisman have been identified as being in danger should an accident/incident occur at the NECD. As such, the City of Paris has been tasked by the CSEP Program and FEMA with providing emergency response assistance to the City of Chrisman should an accident/incident occur at the NECD. Thus, the City of Paris needs to be able to actively respond in an effective manner to an accident/incident originating from that operation. The purpose of the action alternatives presented in this Environmental Assessment is to construct a TDES Facility. The need for the project is to provide a facility for training emergency response personnel and for the storage of decontamination equipment necessary for responding to an accident/incident at the NECD. At present, there is not adequate storage for emergency decontamination equipment, and the existing fire station is too small to host emergency response personnel training. Construction of the proposed TDES Facility will provide the necessary decontamination equipment storage space and classrooms for emergency response personnel training. The decontamination equipment storage and emergency personnel classroom training areas are essential elements of the overall plan for responding to an accident/incident at the NECD. The President’s CEQ has developed regulations for implementing the NEPA. These federal regulations, set forth in Title 40, CFR Parts 1500-1508, require an evaluation of alternatives, and a discussion of the potential environmental impacts of a proposed federal action, as part of the EA process. The FEMA regulations which establish FEMA’s process for implementing NEPA are set forth in 44 CFR Subpart 10. This EA was prepared in accordance with FEMA’s regulations as required under NEPA. As part of this NEPA review, the requirements of other environmental laws and executive orders are addressed. 2. ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS As set forth in Title 40 CFR Part 1500-1508, federal regulations require the EA to provide an evaluation of alternatives and a discussion of their potential environmental impacts. This EA evaluates three (3) alternatives: Alternative 1 – No Action; Alternative 2 – TDES Facility construction along Cherry Point Road (Proposed Action); and Alternative 3 – TDES Facility construction along Work Camp Road (Action Alternative). 2.1 Alternative 1 – No Action Under the No Action alternative, FEMA would not provide funding to Edgar County ESDA for the development of the TDES Facility. As a result, the City of Paris would not have an adequate training facility or decontamination equipment storage to be able to effectively respond to an accident/incident originating from the NECD. 2.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Under the Proposed Action the TDES Facility would be constructed on the south western edge of the site located east of Cherry Point Road and south of Blackhawk Park (see Figure 3 in Appendix A). The TDES Facility at this location would combine the training functions of the police, emergency management, First Responders and Emergency Medical Service (EMS) personnel. Certain First Responder and hazardous material(s) (HAZMAT) vehicles would also be housed at the TDES Facility. The Proposed Action site is located east of Cherry Point Road and south of Blackhawk Park. The site is owned by the City of Paris. The parcel is zoned for special use and is comprised of 18.86 acres measuring approximately 820 feet (north to south) by 435 feet (south end) at its narrowest and 930 feet at its widest (north end). The Proposed Action site is currently vacant with the exception of an underground storage tank (UST) used for confined space entry training. The UST has never been used for the storage of chemicals. The UST is located on the western portion of the parcel. Photographs of the Proposed Action site are provided in Appendix G. The Proposed Action would construct a new four-bay metal building to house equipment and provide training classrooms on the south-western portion of the property. The property east of Cherry Point Road is identified on tax records as Parcel No. 09-13-26-400-006. The parcel is situated in the Southeast quarter of the Southeast of Section 26, Township 14 North, Range 12 West, (approx. 39.634455N, 87.706864W). The subject property is comprised of approximately 18.86 acres or 821,541.6 square feet (Appendix A – Figure 4) of which the proposed 36 feet by 72 feet TDES Facility would only occupy 2,592 square feet. The legal description of the parcel is: “Lot No. 4, containing 8.20 acres, except 2.09 acres thereof described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Lot in the center of the Cherry Point Wagon Road, thence East 6 chains, thence South 4 chains, thence West 4.46 chains to the center of said Wagon Road, thence northerly along the center of said road to the place of beginning. leaving 6.11 acres, more or less; also Lot No. 5, containing 6.85 acres, more or less; also Lot No. 8, containing 4.75 acres, more or less; and also Lot No. 9 containing 1 acre, more or less; All of said Lots being of the County Clerk’s Subdivision of the Southeast Quarter of Section 26, in Township 14 North and in Range 12 West of the 2nd P.M., as shown by plat in Plat Book 2, Page 19 of the Records of Edgar County, Illinois, and containing in all 18.86 acres, more or less.” The proposed TDES Facility at this location will contain four shop bays, two offices, two restrooms, one utility and a classroom (see Appendix A - Figure 5). The facility will provide adequate secure space for emergency training and the storage of decontamination equipment that does not now exist at the current fire or police stations. The TDES Facility is proposed to be constructed on a six (6) in. thick concrete slab with thirty-two (32) inch deep by eight (8) inch wide footings. All framing of the TDES Facility (i.e., laminated, splashboard, framing roof purlins, roof trusses and bracing) will be comprised of #2, or better, yellow pine. Siding, roofing and interior walls and ceiling of the TDES Facility will be constructed of 29 gauge grade 80, or better, structural steel. Construction would include connecting the project site to the existing Paris utility lines. Project site preparation would include minimal grading and the installation of necessary utilities. The proposed project construction would be conducted using standard equipment, methods and procedures. The duration of the proposed project would be approximately six (6) months depending upon the starting time and weather variables. 2.3 Alternative 3 – Action Alternative Under the Action Alternative the TDES Facility would be constructed at the north western edge of the site located just south of Work Camp Road (see Figure 3 in Appendix A). The TDES Facility at this location would combine the training functions of the police, emergency management, First Responders and EMS personnel. Certain First Responder and HAZMAT vehicles would also be housed at the TDES Facility. The Action Alternative site is located approximately one (1) mile northeast of the Proposed Action site. The Action Alternative property is located just south of Work Camp Road. A portion of the Action Alternative property was formerly used as a dredge pit by the City of Paris’s Water Protection District for the disposal of sediment from nearby Twin Lakes. The Action Alternative site has since been converted into a natural wildlife habitat, with the former dredge pit area being converted into a wetlands area. At present, the property is under a 20 year lease to Pheasants Forever and Ducks Unlimited. Management efforts under these organizations are focused on conservation, restoration and management of wetlands and associated habitats for North America’s waterfowl, as well as conservation education. Photographs of the Action Alternative site are provided in Appendix G. Under the Action Alternative a new four-bay metal building to house equipment and provide training classrooms would be constructed. The property just south of Work Camp Road is identified on tax records as Parcel No. 09-13-25-100-001. The parcel is situated in the Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 25, Township 16 North, Range 12 West, (approx. 39.647042N, 87.701368W). The subject property is comprised of approximately 58 acres or 2,526,480 square feet (Appendix A – Figure 4) of which the proposed 36 feet by 72 feet TDES Facility would only occupy 2,592 square feet leaving the remainder of the area for parking and public use. The legal description of the parcel is: “Lot 2, County Clerk’s Subdivision Northwest Quarter described as follows: West half of Northwestern 1/4, Section 25, Township 14 North, Range 12 West of 2nd P.M., except South 20 acres of even width thereof and except for right of way of the C.V. & C. R.R. Company over and across said land, being 2 acres or less in said right of way and leaving 58 acres, more or less, in Edgar County.” The proposed TDES Facility at this location will contain four shop bays, two offices, two restrooms, one utility and a classroom (Appendix A - Figure 5). The new facility will provide adequate secure space for administration and emergency training that does not now exist at the current fire or police stations. The TDES Facility is proposed to be constructed on a six (6) in. thick concrete slab with thirty-two (32) inch deep by eight (8) inch wide footings. All framing of the TDES Facility (i.e., laminated, splashboard, framing roof purlins, roof trusses and bracing) will be comprised of #2, or better, yellow pine. Siding, roofing and interior walls and ceiling of the TDES Facility will be constructed of 29 gauge, grade 80, or better, structural steel. Construction would include connecting the site to the existing Paris utility lines, except sewer. A septic field will be installed on-site to handle the facility sewage. Site preparation would include minimal grading and the installation of necessary utilities. The proposed project construction would be conducted using standard equipment, methods and procedures. The duration of the proposed project would be approximately six (6) months depending upon the starting time and weather variables. 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 3.1 Physical Environment 3.1.1 Geology, Seismicity and Soils The project area is located in Edgar County, which is situated in east central Illinois. A discussion of the local and regional geology, seismicity and soil types is provided in the following sections. The ground elevation in the project area ranges from 659 to 702 feet above mean sea level National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) 1927. Ground elevation in the immediate vicinity of the Proposed Action and Alternative Action sites is approximately 685 feet NGVD 1927 (see EDR Radius Map with GeoCheck – Physical Setting Source Summary in Appendix F). Geology The project area is located within the Bloomington Ridged Plain of the Wisconsin Till Plains Section of the Central Lowland physiographic province. The landform in the intermorainal area upon which the project area is located is characterized by a nearly level to gently sloping ground moraine, except where major creeks have incised the ground moraine. The total annual precipitation in Edgar County is about 41.08 inches. The larger amounts of rainfall in the county tend to occur in April through September (USDA 1999). The stratigraphy of the project area includes modern soils overlying Quaternary age till deposits of the Wedron Formation which directly overlie Kansan Stage sediments resting on Aftonian Stage sediments. The unconsolidated deposits directly overlie Pennsylvanian aged bedrock of the McLeansboro Group Modesto Formation. The contact between the Pennsylvanian aged bedrock and the overlying less well indurated Wisconsinan till represents an unconformity of approximately 290,000,000 years (Willman, et. al. 1975). Structurally, the project area is located near the axis of the Marshall-Sidell Syncline which is on the east flank of the LaSalle Anticlinal Belt and on the northern edge of the Wabash River Basin. The La Salle Anticlinal Belt is the most prominent anticlinal feature in the Illinois Basin. It is a complex structure of en echelon folds, asymmetrical anticlines and monoclines (Swann 2006). Discussion of Alternatives Alternative 1 – No Action: The No Action alternative would have no impacts on the soils or geology of the area. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action: Under the Proposed Action, construction of a building at the project site would cause some disturbance of the geology and soils as part of the project site preparation work. Disturbance of the site will be limited to the immediate area in which the 36 feet by 72 feet TDES Facility will be constructed and the surrounding parking area and access drive. Since the Proposed Action site is relatively flat, the grading needed at the site would be minor. Exposed soils could be subject to erosion, therefore, silt fence and/or other storm water quality best management practices would be utilized during construction. In general, effects to geology and soils would be minor and temporary in nature. Alternative 3 – Action Alternative: Under the Action Alternative, construction of a building at the Action Alternative site would cause some disturbance of the geology and soils as part of the project site preparation work. Disturbance of the site will be limited to the immediate area in which the 36 feet by 72 feet TDES Facility will be constructed and the surrounding parking area and access drive. Since the site is relatively flat, the grading needed at the site would be minor. Exposed soils could be subject to erosion, therefore, a silt fence and/or other storm water quality best management practices would be utilized during construction. In general, the effects to geology and soils would be minor and temporary in nature. Seismicity The Wabash Valley Fault System extends across southeastern Illinois, southwestern Indiana, and an adjacent corner of Kentucky. It stretches approximately 60 miles north-northeastward from just north of the Shawneetown and Rough Creek Fault Zones. Subparallel, high-angle normal faults characterize the fault system with vertical displacements on the order of 480 feet are common. The faults found along the Wabash Valley bound horsts and grabens, and commonly overlap one another. Dip angles along the major fault range from 50 to 85 degrees. Individual fault blocks along the valley are only slightly tilted, and drag is generally absent or weakly expressed (Maverick 2002). The Wabash Seismic Zone is the nearest geological features in the region that may affect the project area. The Wabash Valley Seismic Zone is a buried fault system. The area of seismicity of this zone is located in Southwestern Indiana and in Southeastern Illinois. The Wabash Valley Seismic Zone is reportedly capable of producing 'New Madrid' size earthquake events (CUSEC). There is a strong consensus between seismologists and geologists from the U.S. Geological Survey, various universities in Indiana, and geologists of the Indiana Geological Survey that the Lower Wabash Valley of Indiana and Illinois is capable of producing large and damaging earthquakes at virtually any time (Hill 2002). Executive Order (EO) 12699 requires “the development and promulgation of specifications, building standards, design criteria, and construction practices to achieve appropriate earthquake resistance for new…structures.” The basic structural and seismic-resisting system proposed for the TDES Facility is categorized as “Light Framed Wall w/Shear Panels.” The proposed facility is considered to be in the Group III Seismic Hazard Exposure Group. The soils at the site are characteristic of Site Class D soils. The seismic base shear value calculated for the proposed project is 3596 lbs. The 5-percent-damped, spectral response acceleration parameter at a short period (0.2 second) (SDS) has a spectral response coefficient of 0.33 g. The 5-percent-damped, spectral response acceleration parameter at a period of one second (SD1) has a spectral response coefficient of 0.22 g. The TDES Facility will be constructed according to the current International Building Code (IBC) standards and the structural design will incorporate the provisions for seismic stability as recommended by FEMA for the Proposed Action or the Action Alternative, whichever is selected. PFD shall prepare an earthquake drill/emergency procedures plan in the event that an earthquake occurs during hours when the building is occupied. Review of these drills shall be conducted on a semiannual basis with the staff of PFD. Discussion of Alternatives Alternative 1 – No Action: Under the No Action alternative the geology, seismicity and soils at the proposed project site would not be affected because the proposed project would not be implemented. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action: Under the Proposed Action, construction of the TDES Facility will be in accordance with the current IBC standards and the structural design will incorporate the provisions for seismic stability as recommended by FEMA. Alternative 3 – Action Alternative: Under the Action Alternative, construction of the TDES Facility will be in accordance with the current IBC standards and the structural design will incorporate the provisions for seismic stability as recommended by FEMA. Soils and Farmland The Soil Survey of Edgar County indicates that the Proposed Action site occurs within the Xenia-Senachwine-Drummer Soil Association. In general, these soils consist of nearly level to moderately sloping, poorly drained to moderately well drained soils that formed in loess and the underlying till, or entirely in till or in loess and the underlying outwash on end moraines and ground moraines. The mapped soil on the Proposed Action site is the moderately well drained, moderately slow permeability Xenia silt loam (291B), on 2 to 5 percent slopes. Due to its soil composition, the Xenia silt loam is classified as Prime Farmland in undeveloped areas. However, a portion of both the Proposed Action site and the Action Alternative site have been used in the past as a dredge pit for the disposal of sediment removed from nearby Twin Lakes. The actual location of the proposed TDES Facility construction on the Proposed Action site has been brought to grade with the addition of fill material. As such, the Prime Farmland designation at both Proposed Action site and the Action Alternative sites would not apply. The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) (P.L. 97-98, Sec. 1539-1549; 7 U.S.C. 4201, et seq.), which states that federal agencies must “minimize the extent to which federal programs contribute to the unnecessary conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses” was considered in this EA. The project area is depicted on the Natural Resources Soil Map (NRCS) soil map provided in Appendix A – Figure 6. The Illinois Department of Agriculture (IDOA) examined the proposed project for its potential impact to agricultural land and to determine it’s compliance with the Illinois Farmland Preservation Act and the federal Farmland Protection Policy Act. In a letter dated December 6, 2005, IDOA stated that the project complies with the Illinois Farmland Preservation Act, and subsequently the federal Farmland Protection Policy Act, because it is located within the City of Paris corporate boundaries. The IDOA response is provided in Appendix C – Figure 1. Discussion of Alternatives Alternative 1 – No Action: Under the No Action alternative the geology, seismicity and soils at the proposed site would not be affected because the proposed project would not be implemented. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action: The Proposed Action would involve an excavation depth of approximately from thirty-two (32) inches below grade. Disturbance of the site will be limited to the immediate area in which the 36 feet by 72 feet TDES Facility will be constructed and the surrounding parking area and access drive. The soils will be used within the Proposed Action site for filling and grading. Stockpiling of the topsoil or fill soil will be limited during construction. The septic field will be vegetated at completion and the area immediately surrounding the building, access roads and parking will be covered in gravel. Alternative 3 – Action Alternative: The Action Alternative would involve an excavation depth of approximately from thirty-two (32) inches below grade. Disturbance of the site will be limited to the immediate area in which the 36 feet by 72 feet TDES Facility will be constructed and the surrounding parking area and access drive. The soils will be used within the Action Alternative site for filling and grading. Stockpiling of the topsoil or fill soil will be limited during construction. The septic field will be vegetated at completion and the area immediately surrounding the building, access roads and parking will be covered in gravel. 3.1.2 Water Resources and Water Quality The project area was visited on November 7, 2005 and October 9, 2006. The Proposed Action site is an undeveloped parcel, with a portion of the site used in the past as a settling basin for sediments dredged from nearby Twin Lakes. Fill material has been brought in to level the western portion of the property and to provide a base for construction of the proposed TDES Facility. Ground cover is comprised primarily of weeds, grasses and trees. The western half of the Proposed Action site has been covered in a layer of crushed asphalt. There are no rivers, creeks or other defined drainages on the Proposed Action site. Storm water runoff from the Proposed Action site would flow toward the diked area of the site. The City of Paris has obtained its potable water from Twin Lakes surface water for over 100 years. However, a new water system with as many as six production wells to be drilled on a 19 acre site along the Wabash River near Shephardsville, Indiana is in the planning process with a goal of supplying well water to the City of Paris by the end of 2007. As demonstrated by Environmental Data Resource, Inc.’s (EDR) search of available water well databases there are 90 water wells located within a one (1) mile radius of the project area. The 90 private wells are identified on the Physical Setting Source Map – 1556619.2s provided in the EDR GeoCheck - Physical Setting Source Addendum (see Appendix F – EDR Radius Map with GeoCheck). Andrews Engineering personnel performed a routine desktop wetlands determination and on-site field verification of the proposed action area and alternative action area on October 9th 2006 to expedite determination of compliance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Clean Water Act. Based on observations made during the site visit, Andrews Engineering determined it does not appear that the proposed construction activities will adversely affect potential wetlands in the proposed action area or the alternative action area. The USACE was contacted to determine conditions for the proposed project under the Clean Water Act. In a letter dated November 7, 2006 (Appendix C – Figure 2), the USACE identified that the proposed project is located within the Louisville District, and the area ties into Sugar Creek to the east, which is a tributary of the Wabash River. The USACE determined that no wetland or water of the United States would be impacted by the proposed project, and that a Department of Army, Section 404 permit is not required for a five-year period. The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) was contacted to determine what state requirements would apply under the Clean Water Act. In a letter dated January 13, 2006 (Appendix C – Figure 3), the IEPA stated they had no objections with the proposed project. Discussion of Alternatives Alternative 1 – No Action: Implementation of the No Action alternative would not affect the surface or groundwater resources as it does not involve construction. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action: The Proposed Action will have little or no effect on water resources or water quality. Disturbance of the site will be limited to the immediate area in which the 36 feet by 72 feet TDES Facility will be constructed and the surrounding parking area and access drive. Mitigation measures that will be implemented as needed are silt fences, straw bales and seeding. Stockpiling of the topsoil or fill soil will be limited during construction. The septic field will be vegetated at completion and the area immediately surrounding the building, access roads and parking will be covered in gravel. Alternative 3 – Action Alternative: The Action Alternative will have little or no effect on water resources or water quality. Disturbance of the site will be limited to the immediate area in which the 36 feet by 72 feet TDES Facility will be constructed and the surrounding parking area and access drive. Mitigation measures that will be implemented as needed are silt fences, straw bales and seeding. Stockpiling of the topsoil or fill soil will be limited during construction. The septic field will be vegetated at completion and the area immediately surrounding the building, access roads and parking will be covered in gravel. 3.1.3 Floodplain Management (Executive Order 11988) EO 11988 requires federal agencies to take action to minimize occupancy and modification of the floodplain. Specifically, EO 11988 prohibits federal agencies from funding construction in the 100-year floodplain unless there are no practicable alternatives. FEMA’s regulations for complying with EO 11988 are promulgated in 44 CFR Part 9. The project area has a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) zone designation of C (no shading) indicating it is in an area outside of the 100 year flood plain and is only subject to minimal flooding (See Appendix A – Figure 7). The designation of minimal flooding is supported by the EDR NEPACheck report (see EDR NEPACheck in Appendix E). Discussion of Alternatives Alternative 1 – No Action: Implementation of the No Action alternative would not affect a floodplain as it does not involve construction. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action: Because the Proposed Action is not in a floodplain and would not affect any floodplain, the proposed action is consistent with EO 11988. Disturbance of the site will be limited to the immediate area in which the 36 feet by 72 feet TDES Facility will be constructed and the surrounding parking area and access drive. Mitigation measures that will be implemented as needed are silt fences, straw bales and seeding. Alternative 3 – Action Alternative: Because the Action Alternative is not in a floodplain and would not affect any floodplain, the proposed action is consistent with EO 11988. Disturbance of the site will be limited to the immediate area in which the 36 feet by 72 feet TDES Facility will be constructed and the surrounding parking area and access drive. Mitigation measures that will be implemented as needed are silt fences, straw bales and seeding. 3.1.4 Air Quality The Clean Air Act requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment; the Clean Air Act established two (2) types of national air quality standards; primary standards set limits to protect public health, including the health of “sensitive” populations such as asthmatics, children and the elderly; secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare, including protection against visibility, damage to animals, crops, vegetation and buildings; current criteria pollutants are: Carbon Monoxide (CO), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), Ozone (O3), Lead (Pb), Particulate Matter (PM10) and Sulfur Dioxide (SO2). The IEPA was contacted to determine what state requirements would apply under the Clean Air Act. In a letter dated January 13, 2006 (Appendix C – Figure 3), the IEPA stated they had no objections with the proposed project. Discussion of Alternatives Alternative 1 – No Action: Under the No Action alternative the air quality would not be affected because no construction activities would take place. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action: Under the Proposed Action, emissions from heavy equipment may temporarily increase the levels of some pollutants such as carbon monoxide and particulate matter; these potential increases are not expected to have significant impacts on the ambient air quality. Construction activities will include best management practices/mitigation techniques to control/minimize airborne impacts. Best management practices including dust control measures such as watering and covering materials hauled in trucks and any haul roads created will minimize fugitive dust. Construction equipment will also be tuned and maintained in good working condition to minimize emissions of criteria pollutants and particulates. Alternative 3 – Action Alternative: Under the Action Alternative, emissions from heavy equipment may temporarily increase the levels of some pollutants such as carbon monoxide and particulate matter; these potential increases are not expected to have significant impacts on the ambient air quality. Construction activities will include best management practices/mitigation techniques to control/minimize airborne impacts. Best management practices including dust control measures such as watering and covering materials hauled in trucks and any haul roads created will minimize fugitive dust. Construction equipment will also be tuned and maintained in good working condition to minimize emissions of criteria pollutants and particulates. 3.2 Ecological Environment 3.2.1 Terrestrial and Aquatic Environment Both the Proposed Action site and Action Alternative site are located within the City of Paris (Appendix A – Figure 4). A portion of these project sites have historically been used for handling dredge material from nearby Twin Lakes. The Proposed Action site is currently vacant with the exception of a UST used for confined space entry training. The UST is located along the western portion of the parcel. The UST has never been used for the storage of chemicals. The Action Alternative property is located just south of Work Camp Road. A portion of the site was formerly used as a dredge pit by the City of Paris for the disposal of sediment from nearby Twin Lakes. The Action Alternative site has since been converted into a natural wildlife habitat, with the portion that was used as a dredge pit being converted into a wetlands area. At present, the property is under a 20 year lease to Pheasants Forever and Ducks Unlimited. Disturbance of the Proposed Action site or Alternative Action site will be limited to the immediate area in which the 36 feet by 72 feet TDES Facility will be constructed. No native wildlife will be affected by the construction as the habitat will not be altered. Both the Proposed Action site and the Alternative Action site have limited value for plant and wildlife species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was contacted in reference to the environmental review for the proposed project. The USFWS responded in a December 22, 2005 letter identifying the Indiana Bat (scientific name - Myotis sodalist) as an endangered species that has a range that includes the project area (See Appendix C – Figure 4). As such, the USFWS made the recommendation that the Environmental Assessment should evaluate the impacts of the proposed action on the identified endangered species. The EDR NEPACheck report concurs with the USFWS findings regarding the project being within the range of the Indiana Bat (see EDR NEPACheck in Appendix E). Based upon the USFWS conclusion that “there is no designated critical habitat in the project area at this time,” and the lack of “critical habitat” (i.e., Caves, mines; small stream corridors with well developed riparian woods; upland and bottomland forests) observed in the project area during the November 7, 2005 and October 9, 2006 site visits, it is concluded that the proposed project will not affect the listed species. As such, no further consultation and/or coordination with the USFWS is required. In addition, the December 22, 2005 USFWS letter identifies that they do not administer the Magnunson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA). The MSFCMA applies to fishery resources off the coasts of the United States and the anadromous species (i.e., species such as salmon, shad and sturgeon which reproduce in inland waters and spend their adult life in the sea) and continental shelf fishery resources of the United States. Based upon the absence of coastal fishery resources off, anadromous species and continental shelf fishery resources, the requirements under MSFCMA are not applicable for the project area. Discussion of Alternatives Alternative 1 – No Action: The No Action alternative would not result in an alteration to the existing resources; as such, impacts to terrestrial resources would not occur. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action: The Proposed Action involves construction on property within the City of Paris. During the construction phase, the existing topography will be altered only in the immediate area of the 36 feet by 72 feet TDES Facility and the surrounding parking area and access drive. Mitigation measures that will be implemented as needed are silt fences, straw bales and seeding. The topography of the site is relatively flat. As such, the primary impact to drainage will be short-term and occur during construction as a result of limited disturbance of surface materials and potential erosion of the disturbed areas during precipitation events. Preparation of the site for construction of the TDES Facility will involve limited clearing and placement of footers below the frost-line. The parking area and access drive will involve minimal clearing and construction of a gravel access road. The likelihood and severity of impacts to the terrestrial and aquatic environments will be eliminated or minimized through design and proper implementation of erosion control measures in accordance with standard erosion control practice. Long-term, post-construction impacts that might occur during operation and maintenance includes additional site erosion but these impacts are not likely to be significant since disturbed areas will be revegetated and drainage improvements maintained. As such, construction activities may affect drainage in the short term, but long-term changes to the terrestrial environment are not anticipated. The proposed project will not affect the identified endangered species (Indiana bat). Alternative 3 – Action Alternative: The Action Alternative involves construction on property within the City of Paris. During the construction phase, the existing topography will be altered only in the immediate area of the 36 feet by 72 feet TDES Facility and the surrounding parking area and access drive. Mitigation measures that will be implemented as needed are silt fences, straw bales and seeding. The topography of the site is relatively flat. As such, the primary impact to drainage will be short-term and occur during construction as a result of limited disturbance of surface materials and potential erosion of the disturbed areas during precipitation events. Preparation of the site for construction of the TDES Facility will involve limited clearing and placement of footers below the frost-line. The parking area and access drive will involve minimal clearing and construction of a gravel access road. The likelihood and severity of impacts to the terrestrial and aquatic environments will be eliminated or minimized through design and proper implementation of erosion control measures in accordance with standard erosion control practice. Long-term, post-construction impacts that might occur during operation and maintenance includes additional site erosion but these impacts are not likely to be significant since disturbed areas will be revegetated and drainage improvements maintained. As such, construction activities may affect drainage in the short term, but long-term changes to the terrestrial environment are not anticipated. The proposed project will not affect the identified endangered species (Indiana bat). 3.2.2 Wetlands (Executive Order 11990) EO 11990, Protection of the Wetlands, requires federal agencies to take action to minimize the loss of wetlands. The NEPA compliance process required federal agencies to consider direct and indirect impact to wetlands, which result in federally funded projects. The National Wetland Inventory for Paris, Illinois was referenced using the Wetlands Mapper at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Internet site (http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov). The National Wetland Inventory indicates that there are nine (9) wetlands within the project area. Specifically, there are four (4) freshwater ponds (PUBGH), one (1) lake or reservoir basin (L1UBHH), two (2) freshwater emergent wetland (PEMCH), one (1) freshwater forested/shrub wetland (PFO1AH), one (1) freshwater emergent/forested (PEM/FO1CH) (see Appendix A – Figure 8). One of the identified wetlands is located on the Proposed Action site; approximately 400 feet from the construction site. Given the limited nature of the construction activities, and the distance of the wetland from the construction site, no impacts to the wetland are anticipated It is located on the northern edge of the property and is identified as PUBGH (Freshwater Pond). No wetlands were identified on the Action Alternative property. However, it is understood that the majority of the site has been converted into a wetlands area and is now being leased to and managed by Pheasants Forever and Ducks Unlimited. The EDR NEPACheck concurs with the delineated wetlands on the National Wetlands Inventory Map (see EDR NEPACheck in Appendix E). Under both the Proposed Action and Action Alternative scenarios, disturbance of the site will be limited to the immediate area in which the 36 feet by 72 feet TDES Facility will be constructed and the surrounding parking area and access drive. Due to the size and location of the proposed structure (36 feet by 72 feet building), no wetlands in either location would be affected by the building and/or parking areas. The Illinois Department of Natural Resources stated in a Consultation Agency Action Report response, dated December 21, 2005, that no state protected resources or state wetlands will be affected by the proposed project (see Appendix C – Figure 5). Discussion of Alternatives Alternative 1 - No Action: Under the No Action alternative the existing resources would not be altered; as such, impacts to wetlands would not occur. Alternative 2 - Proposed Action: The wetland on the Proposed Action property is located approximately 500 feet northwest of the proposed TDES Facility location. Construction of the proposed TDES Facility will result in the alteration of the existing topography only in the immediate area of the 36 feet by 72 feet TDES Facility, the parking area and access drive; as such, impacts to the wetland area are not expected. Preparation of the site for construction of the TDES Facility will involve limited clearing and placement of footers below the frost-line. The parking area and access drive will involve minimal clearing and construction of a gravel access road. Any impacts will be short-term and occur during construction as a result of limited disturbance of subsurface materials and potential erosion of the disturbed areas during precipitation events. The likelihood and severity of impacts to the wetlands will be eliminated or minimized due to the size of the proposed structure and the nature of the construction activities; the proposed structure will be 36 feet by 72 feet and disturbance will occur only within the immediate vicinity of the structure. Additionally erosion control measures will be implemented in accordance with standard erosion control practices. Long-term, post-closure impacts that might occur during operation and maintenance includes additional site erosion but these impacts are not likely to be significant since disturbed areas will be revegetated and drainage improvements maintained.   Alternative 3 - Action Alternative: Although the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory did not identify any wetlands on the Action Alternative site, the majority of the site has been converted into a wetlands area and is now being leased to and managed by Pheasants Forever and Ducks Unlimited. Construction of the proposed TDES Facility will result in the alteration of the existing topography only in the immediate area of the 36 feet by 72 feet TDES Facility, the parking area and access drive; as such, impacts to the wetland area are not expected.   Preparation of the site for construction of the TDES Facility will involve limited clearing and placement of footers below the frost-line. The parking area and access drive will involve minimal clearing and construction of a gravel access road. Any impacts will be short-term and occur during precipitation events. The likelihood and severity of impacts to the wetlands will be eliminated or minimized through design and proper implementation of erosion control measures in accordance with standard erosion control practice. Long-term, post c onstruction impacts that might occur during operation and maintenance includes additional site erosion but these impacts are not likely to be significant since disturbed areas will be revegetated and drainage improvements maintained. 3.2.3 Threatened and Endangered Species In accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, the project area was evaluated for the potential occurrence of federally listed threatened and endangered species. The ESA requires any federal agency that funds, authorizes or carries out an action to ensure that their action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species (including plant species) or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitats (FEMA 1996). The USFWS was contacted in reference to the environmental review for the proposed project. The USFWS responded in a December 22, 2005 letter identifying the Indiana Bat (scientific name - Myotis sodalist) as an endangered species that has a range that includes the project area (See Appendix C – Figure 4). As such, the USFWS made the recommendation that the Environmental Assessment should evaluate the impacts of the proposed action on the identified endangered species. The EDR NEPACheck report concurs with the USFWS findings regarding the project being within the range of the Indiana Bat (see EDR NEPACheck in Appendix E). Based upon the USFWS conclusion that “there is no designated critical habitat in the project area at this time,” and the lack of “critical habitat” (i.e., Caves, mines; small stream corridors with well developed riparian woods; upland and bottomland forests) observed in the project area during the November 7, 2005 and October 9, 2006 site visits, it is concluded that the proposed project will not affect the listed species. As such, no further consultation and/or coordination with the USFWS is required. In addition, the December 22, 2005 USFWS letter identifies that they do not administer the MSFCMA. The MSFCMA applies to fishery resources off the coasts of the United States and the anadromous species (i.e., species such as salmon, shad and sturgeon which reproduce in inland waters and spend their adult life in the sea) and continental shelf fishery resources of the United States. Based upon the absence of coastal fishery resources off, anadromous species and continental shelf fishery resources, the requirements under MSFCMA are not applicable for the project area. The Illinois Department of Natural Resources stated in a Consultation Agency Action Report response, dated December 21, 2005, that no state protected resources or state wetlands will be affected by the proposed project (see Appendix C – Figure 5). The Proposed Action and Alternative Action sites are located in Paris, Illinois. Both sites are undeveloped lots with vegetative ground cover. The western portion of the Proposed Action site has been covered in a layer of crushed asphalt. The Proposed Action site has a small pond located on the northern end of the site. The proposed TDES Facility would be located on the south-western edge of the Proposed Action site. The Action Alternative site has been converted into a wetlands area with the exception of the northern edge of the site where the proposed TDES Facility would be constructed. Discussion of Alternatives Alternative 1 – No Action: The No Action alternative would not disturb natural areas and thus, would not adversely affect threatened and endangered species. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action: Under the Proposed Action there are no expected long or short-term impacts to threatened or endangered species. Disturbance of the site will be limited to the immediate area in which the 36 feet by 72 feet TDES Facility will be constructed and the surrounding parking area and access drive. No trees will be cleared as part of the Proposed Action. The proposed project will not affect the identified endangered species (Indiana Bat). Alternative 3 – Action Alternative: Under the Action Alternative there are no expected long or short-term impacts to threatened or endangered species. Disturbance of the site will be limited to the immediate area in which the 36 feet by 72 feet TDES Facility will be constructed and the surrounding parking area and access drive. No trees will be cleared as part of the Action Alternative. The proposed project will not affect the identified endangered species (Indiana Bat). 3.3 Hazardous Materials The Proposed Action and Action Alternative sites are located within the Paris city limits. On November 7, 2005 and October 9, 2006 the site was visited to conduct an evaluation of the presence or likelihood of the presence of hazardous materials and wastes in the project area. The reconnaissance survey did not identify the presence of hazardous materials at either the Proposed Action or Action Alternative sites. According to Mr. Duane Fidler of the Edgar County ESDA and Fire Chief Herman Taylor, the former Fire Chief of the PFD, both sites have never been developed for any business/commercial use. A portion of both the Proposed Action and Alternative Action sites were used in the past as sedimentation ponds for material dredged from nearby Twin Lakes. On the Proposed Action site, there is a UST that is used solely for confined space entry training. The UST is located on the western portion of the Proposed Action site. The UST is clean and has never been used to store chemicals on the Proposed Action site. During the November 7, 2005 site visit the tank that is now the UST was setting by the north entrance to the Proposed Action site. It was during the October 9, 2006 site visit that the tank was found to be underground. A hazardous materials database search was conducted by EDR to identify any potential hazards within the project area. The EDR Radius Map with GeoCheck report was conducted to meet the government records search requirements of American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) Standard Practices for Environmental Site Assessments, E 1527-00. Search distances were per ASTM standard. The databases included in EDR’s search included the Federal ASTM Standard, State ASTM Standard, Federal ASTM Supplemental, State or Local ASTM Supplemental, EDR Proprietary Historical Databases and Brownfield Databases (see EDR Radius Map with GeoCheck in Appendix F). Neither the Proposed Action site nor the Alternative Action site was identified in any of the databases searched by EDR. However, the EDR search did identify thirty-two (32) unmappable (orphan) sites within the project area (see EDR Radius Map with GeoCheck in Appendix F). The term “orphan sites” is used by EDR to refer to those facilities that cannot be mapped due to poor or inadequate address information. During the project site visit, none of these sites were found to be within the immediate vicinity of the Proposed Action or Action Alternative site locations. The IEPA was contacted to provide information on the proposed project site; they have no reportable information for the project area or any issue with the proposed project (Appendix C -Figure 4). Discussion of Alternatives Alternative 1 – No Action: No impacts resulting from hazardous materials are anticipated under the No Action alternative. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action: There were no hazardous materials identified on the Proposed Action site. However, should any hazardous materials be discovered, generated, or used during the implementation of the proposed project be encountered, they shall be disposed of and handled in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal regulations. On the Proposed Action site, there is a UST that is used solely for confined space entry training. The UST is located on the western portion of the Proposed Action site. The UST is clean and has never been used to store chemicals on the Proposed Action site. Alternative 3 – Action Alternative: There were no hazardous materials identified on the Action Alternative site. However, should any hazardous materials be discovered, generated, or used during the implementation of the proposed project be encountered, they shall be disposed of and handled in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal regulations. 3.4 Socioeconomics 3.4.1 Zoning and Land Use The project area is located within the corporate limits of the City of Paris, Edgar County, Illinois. Both the Proposed Action and Alternative Action sites are situated on the northwest side of the city (see Appendix A – Figure 3). A portion of both of these sites have been used in the past as dredge pits for sediment recovered from nearby Twin Lakes. The City of Paris has owned the Alternative 2 – Proposed Action site parcel since July 28, 1973 (recorded July 15, 1977). The Action Alternative site has been converted into a natural wildlife habitat, with the portion that was used as a dredge pit being converted into a wetlands area. At present, the property is under a 20 year lease to Pheasants Forever and Ducks Unlimited. Using either the Proposed Action site or the Action Alternative site would not change the current economy in the community of Paris and would not require additional travel for safety personnel to access the proposed TDES Facility. The parcel containing the Proposed Action site was granted a special use permit by the City Planning Commission during the November 3, 2005 City Counsel meeting allowing for the construction of the proposed facility. The proposed project under the Proposed Action alternative is consistent with the City’s and the County’s planned use for this parcel (see Appendix C – Figure 6 and Figure 7). The land use and zoning will not be negatively impacted by the Proposed Action or Action Alternative. There are adequate visual barriers in the form of vegetation as tree cover and berms to eliminate and/or minimize impacts to zoning and land use. The uses of the parcels bordering the Proposed Action site are as follows: * North – Blackhawk Community Park and residential property; * East – CSX railroad and residential property; * South – Residential property; * West – Cherry Point Road and agricultural property. The uses of the parcels bordering the Action Alternative site are as follows: * North – Work Camp Road and agricultural property * East – Agricultural property; * South – Agricultural property and Twin Lakes; * West – CSX railroad and agricultural property. Discussion of Alternatives Alternative 1 - No Action: Under the No Action alternative the existing resources would not be altered; as such, impacts to zoning and land use would not occur. Alternative 2 - Proposed Action: The Proposed Action property has been zoned special use by the City of Paris. The special use designation was intended to allow the construction of the proposed TDES Facility at this location.   Tree lines separate the residentially zoned property to the north, east and south of the site and Cherry Point Road separates the Proposed Action site from the agricultural property to the west of the site. As such, construction of the TDES Facility at this location is not expected to negatively impact the land use or zoning of the other properties surrounding the Proposed Action site.   Alternative 3 - Action Alternative: The Action Alternative property has been converted into a natural wildlife habitat and zoned as such. It is under a 20 year lease to Pheasants Forever and Ducks Unlimited.   There are no residentially zoned properties within the immediate vicinity of the Action Alternative site. As such, construction of the TDES Facility at this location is not expected to negatively impact the land use or zoning of the other properties surrounding the Action Alternative site. 3.4.2 Visual Resources Visual resources refer to the landscape character, visual sensitivity, scenic integrity and landscape visibility of a geographically defined viewshed. The project area is situated in a rural setting. The Proposed Action site is a vacant lot with the exception of the UST used for confined space entry training. In the past, the lot was used as a dredge pit for material from Twin Lakes (Appendix A – Figure 4). The UST located on the Proposed Action site has never been used to store chemicals and is used solely for training purposes. The Proposed Action site is owned by the City of Paris. The Action Alternative site has been converted into a natural wildlife habitat, with the portion that was used as a dredge pit being converted into a wetlands area (Appendix A – Figure 4). At present, the property is under a 20 year lease to Pheasants Forever and Ducks Unlimited. Construction of the proposed structure on the Proposed Action site will mesh well with the existing architecture and enhance the viewshed in the Paris area. Likewise, construction of the proposed structure on the vacant Action Alternative site will also mesh well with the surrounding architecture and will enhance the viewshed in the Paris area. Discussion of Alternatives Alternative 1 – No Action: The No Action alternative will not impact any visual resources. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action: Under the Proposed Action the proposed project would improve the viewshed in the area and will not significantly result in any negative short- or long-term impact on the visual resources. Alternative 3 – Action Alternative: Under the Action Alternative the proposed project would improve the viewshed in the area and will not significantly result in any negative short- or long-term impact on the visual resources. 3.4.3 Noise Noise, defined herein as undesirable sound, is federally regulated by the Noise Control Act of 1972 (NCA); although the NCA gave the USEPA authority to prepare guidelines for acceptable ambient noise levels, it only charges those federal guidelines that operate noise-producing facilities or equipment to implement noise standards; the USEPA’s guidelines, and those of many federal agencies, state that outdoor sound level in excess of 55 decibels (dB) are “normally unacceptable” for noise sensitive land uses such as residences, schools and hospitals. Sensitive receptors in the project area are residents who live nearby, and people working or traveling near the Proposed Action or Alternative Action sites. Discussion of Alternatives Alternative 1 – No Action: The No Action alternative would not affect ambient noise levels in the project area. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action: The Proposed Action would not have a long-term effect on ambient noise levels in the project area. Construction equipment may temporarily increase noise levels. Alternative 3 – Action Alternative: The Action Alternative would not have a long-term effect on ambient noise levels in the project area. Construction equipment may temporarily increase noise levels. 3.4.4 Public Services and Utilities Public services will be provided for the proposed project as they are currently for the City. Available utilities in the area are water, gas and electric. As no sanitary sewer connections are available at either the Proposed Action site or the Alternative Action site, a septic field will be constructed for management of sewage wastes. Discussion of Alternatives Alternative 1 – No Action: No impacts to public services and utilities are anticipated under the No Action alternative. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action: Under the Proposed Action, water, gas and electric will be connected. The proposed project will have fire hydrants located around the building as required by the local fire departments. Connection of the utilities is not expected to cause any disruption in services to members of the Paris community. Alternative 3 – Action Alternative: Under the Action Alternative, water, gas and electric will be connected. The proposed project will have fire hydrants located around the building as required by the local fire departments. Connection of the utilities is not expected to cause any disruption in services to members of the Paris community. 3.4.5 Traffic and Circulation The Proposed Action site is bordered on the west by Cherry Point Road. Access to the project site under this alternative would be via Cherry Point Road (Appendix A – Figure 4). Cherry Point Road is a two (2) lane road maintained by the Edgar County Highway Department. The Alternative Action site is bordered by Work Camp Road to the north. Access to the project site under this alternative would be via Work Camp Road (Appendix A – Figure 4). Work Camp Road is a two (2) lane road maintained by the Paris Township. Discussion of Alternatives Alternative 1 – No Action: No impacts to traffic or public transportation are anticipated under the No Action alternative. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action: The Proposed Action would have short-term impacts on traffic on Cherry Point Road during the construction phase of the project. No long-term impacts to traffic are anticipated for the Proposed Action. Alternative 3 – Action Alternative: Short-term impacts to traffic on Work Camp Road are anticipated, as a result of construction activities, under the Action Alternative. No long-term impacts to traffic are anticipated for the Action Alternative. 3.4.6 Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898) On February 11, 1994, President Clinton signed EO 12898, entitled, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations.” The EO directs federal agencies, “to make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States...” Ethnicity The Proposed Action and Alternative Actions sites are located within the City of Paris, Edgar County, Illinois. U.S. Census information indicates that the total population of the City of Paris for 2000 was 9,077 people. Of this, 8,924 (98.3%) were Caucasian, 46 (0.5%) were Black or African American, 19 (0.2%) were American Indian or Alaska Native, 20 (0.2%) were Asian, 1 (0.0%) was Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, 23 (0.3%) were listed as “Some other race” and the remaining 44 (0.5%) were listed as “Two or more races.” For Edgar County, Illinois, the U.S. Census information indicates that 19,704 people resided in Edgar County, Illinois in 2000. Of this, 19,137 (97.1%) were Caucasian, 362 (1.8%) were Black or African American, and the remaining population were of “some other race.” And for Illinois, the total population in 2000 was 12,419,293 of which 9,125,471 (73.5%) are Caucasian, 1,876,875 (15.1%) was Black or African American, and the remaining population were of “some other race.” In accordance with EO 12898 regarding environmental justice the alternatives will not adversely or disproportionately impact minority populations. Income Levels and Education The U.S. Census reports the 2000 per capita income for Paris, Illinois as $17,750 (1999 dollars) with a median household income of $30,902, and for Edgar County, Illinois the per capita income was $17,857 (1999 dollars) with a median household income of $35,203 (1999 dollars). Of the adults over 25 in 2000, 79.5% had a high school diploma or more and 11.1% had a Bachelor’s degree or more. None of the proposed alternatives will adversely or disproportionately impact low-income populations. These alternatives comply with EO 12898 regarding environmental justice. Discussion of Alternatives Alternative 1 – No Action: The No Action alternative would not have a disproportionately high or adverse impact on the minority or low-income populations of the community. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action: The Proposed Action alternative would not have a disproportionately high or adverse impact on the minority or low-income populations of the community. Alternative 3 – Action Alternative: The Action Alternative would not have a disproportionately high or adverse impact on the minority or low-income populations of the community. 3.4.7 Safety and Security Safety and security issues that have been considered in this analysis include the health and safety of local residents, the public-at-large and the protection of personnel involved in activities related to the implementation of the proposed construction. Also considered were EO 13045 and EO 12699. EO 13045, Protection of Children, requires federal agencies to make it a high priority to identify and assess environmental health and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children. EO 12699, Seismic Safety of Federal or Federally Assisted or Regulated New Building Construction, requires federal preparedness and mitigation activities to include the development and promulgation of specifications, building standards, design criteria, and construction practices achieve appropriate earthquake resistance for new structures, and an examination of alternative provisions and requirement for reducing earthquake hazards through federal or federally financed construction, loans, loan guarantees and licenses (if applicable). Discussion of Alternatives Alternative 1 – No Action: The No Action alternative would not adversely affect the population of the study area; since the No Action alternative does not involve the employment of personnel involved in construction, there would be no potential risks to the personal safety of those who would otherwise be performing the activities. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action: The Proposed Action would have short-term safety and security issues during the construction period. Project Site security and safety under the Proposed Action is an issue that will be handled by the Coordinating Contractor. Measures to mitigate potential impacts to children and other unauthorized personnel will be implemented in the form of appropriate signage and temporary fencing around the construction area/work zone. To minimize risks to safety and human health, all construction activities will be performed using qualified personnel in the proper use of equipment including all appropriate safety precautions; additionally, all activities would be conducted in a safe manner in accordance with the standards specified in Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) regulations. Under the Proposed Action all structural engineering will be completed based on the IBC standards so as to ensure public safety. Alternative 3 – Action Alternative: The Action Alternative would have short-term safety and security issues during the construction period. Project Site security and safety under the Action Alternative is an issue that will be handled by the Coordinating Contractor. Measures to mitigate potential impacts to children and other unauthorized personnel will be implemented in the form of appropriate signage and temporary fencing around the construction area/work zone. To minimize risks to safety and human health, all construction activities will be performed using qualified personnel in the proper use of equipment including all appropriate safety precautions; additionally, all activities would be conducted in a safe manner in accordance with the standards specified in OSHA regulations. Under the Action Alternative all structural engineering will be completed based on the IBC standards so as to ensure public safety. 3.5 Cultural Resources In addition to review under NEPA, consideration of impacts to cultural resources is mandated under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as amended, and implemented by 36 CFR Part 800; requirements include identification of significant historic properties that may be impacted by the Proposed Action. Historic properties are defined as archaeological sites, standing structures or other historic resources listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (36CFR 60.4). As defined in 36 CFR Part 800.16(d), the Area of Potential Effect (APE), “is the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties, if such properties exist.” In addition to identifying historic properties that may exist in the proposed project’s APE, FEMA must also determine, in consultation with the appropriate State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), what effect, if any; the action will have on historic properties. Moreover, if the project would have an adverse effect on these properties, FEMA must consult with SHPO on ways to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effect. Consideration of impacts to cultural resources in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.4 has been completed for the Proposed Action site. A letter, dated January 23, 2006, was received from the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency (IHPA) that they have no objection to the undertaking proceeding as planned (Appendix C – Figure 8). The EDR NEPACheck report did not identify any mappable sites. However, three (3) sites were identified in EDR’s database (see EDR NEPACheck in Appendix E). Based upon the text description of these locations provided in the EDR report, these sites are not located on the Proposed Action or Alternative Action sites. Based upon IHPA recommendations and the findings of IHPA no cultural resources were identified on the Proposed Action or Alternative Action sites. Discussion of Alternatives Alternative 1 – No Action: The No Action alternative would not affect cultural resources. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action: Under the Proposed Action there are no potential short-term and/or long-term effects on cultural resources in the project area. If ground-disturbing activities occur during implementation of this alternative, the applicant will monitor excavation activity, and if any artifacts or human remains are found during the excavation process, all work is to cease and the applicant will notify FEMA, the Grantee, and the SHPO. Alternative 3 – Action Alternative: Under the Action Alternative there are no potential short-term and/or long-term effects on cultural resources in the project area. If ground-disturbing activities occur during implementation of this alternative, the applicant will monitor excavation activity, and if any artifacts or human remains are found during the excavation process, all work is to cease and the applicant will notify FEMA, the Grantee, and the SHPO. 3.5.1 Historic Architecture Consideration of impacts to historical resources in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.4 has been completed for the Proposed Action site. A letter, dated January 23, 2006, was received from the IHPA that they have no objection to the undertaking proceeding as planned (Appendix C – Figure 8). The EDR NEPACheck report did not identify any mappable sites. However, three (3) sites were identified in EDR’s database (see EDR NEPACheck in Appendix E). Based upon the text description of these locations provided in the EDR report, these sites are not located on the Proposed Action or Alternative Action sites. Based upon IHPA recommendations and the findings of IHPA no historical resources were identified on the Proposed Action or Alternative Action sites. Discussion of Alternatives Alternative 1 – No Action: The No Action alternative would not affect historic architecture. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action: The Proposed Action alternative would not affect historic architecture. Alternative 3 – Action Alternative: The Action Alternative would not affect historic architecture. 3.5.2 Archaeological Resources A search for the information pertaining to the history and archaeological resources of the City of Paris and the immediate surrounding provided little actual information about the City itself. From http://www.historyillinois.org/frames/markers/247.htm, “Paris lies in the heart of a rich farming area. Most of the land embraced in Edgar County, including Paris, remained Kickapoo hunting grounds until 1819, but the eastern quarter of the county was part of a tract ceded by the Indians in 1819 and offered for sale at Vincennes as early as 1816. Edgar County was established in 1823, and Paris was laid out on twenty-six acres donated by Samuel Vance in April of that year. The Edgar County Courthouse is located at the center of this parcel of land. Alone or with others, Vance laid out the earliest roads from Paris in 1823-24. The first road, later known as the lower Terre Haute Road, is still being traveled today. A second road ran to Darwin, in Clark County. The fourth road, to the Vermilion salines near Danville, formed part of the Vincennes Trace and is now a section of Illinois Route 1 to Chicago. At 130 South Central Avenue in Paris is the former home of Milton K. Alexander, Brigadier General in the Illinois Mounted Volunteers during the Black Hawk War of 1832. The house was built in 1826 and enlarged in 1840. Alexander was acquainted with Abraham1, who as a lawyer frequently came to Paris when Edgar County was in the Eighth Judicial Circuit. Lincoln spoke in Paris in August 6, 1856, on behalf of the Republican presidential candidate, John C. Fremont. Lincoln spoke in Paris again on September 7, 1858, in his unsuccessful campaign against Stephen A. Douglas for United States Senate. A large proportion of the early settlers in Paris were from the South, and during the Civil War, there were many southern sympathizers called Copperheads. Some of these people were defeated in a minor clash with Union troops in February 1864.” Consideration of impacts to archaeological resources in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.4 has been completed for the project area. A letter, dated January 23, 2006, was received from the IHPA that they have no objection to the undertaking proceeding as planned (Appendix C – Figure 8). The EDR NEPACheck report did not identify any mappable sites. However, three (3) sites were identified in EDR’s database (see EDR NEPACheck in Appendix E). Based upon the text description of these locations provided in the EDR report, these sites are not located on the Proposed Action or Alternative Action sites. Based upon IHPA recommendations and the findings of IHPA no archaeological resources were identified on the Proposed Action or Alternative Action sites. Discussion of Alternatives Alternative 1 – No Action: The No Action alternative would not affect Archaeological Resources within the project area. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action: The Proposed Action alternative would not affect Archaeological Resources within the project area. Alternative 3 – Action Alternative: The Action Alternative would not affect Archaeological Resources within the project area. 3.5.3 Tribal Coordination and Religious Sites (Executive Order 13175) On November 6, 2000, President Clinton signed EO 13175, entitled, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” The EO directs federal agencies, “to establish regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials in the development of Federal policies that have tribal implications, to strengthen the United States government-to-government relationships with Indian tribes, and to reduce the imposition of unfunded mandates upon Indian tribes…” Consideration of impacts to cultural, historical and archaeological resources in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800.4 has been completed for the Proposed Action site. A letter, dated January 23, 2006, was received from the IHPA that they have no objection to the undertaking proceeding as planned (Appendix C – Figure 8). The EDR NEPACheck report did not identify any mappable sites. However, three (3) sites were identified in EDR’s database (see EDR NEPACheck in Appendix E). Based upon the text description of these locations provided in the EDR report, these sites are not located on the Proposed Action or Alternative Action sites. Based upon IHPA recommendations and the findings of IHPA no cultural, historical or archaeological resources were identified on the Proposed Action or Alternative Action sites. Discussion of Alternatives Alternative 1 – No Action: The No Action alternative would not affect Tribal coordination or religious sites within the project area. Alternative 2 – Proposed Action: The Proposed Action would not affect Tribal coordination or religious sites within the project area. Alternative 3 – Action Alternative: The Action Alternative would not affect Tribal coordination or religious sites within the project area. 3.6 Summary of Affected Environment Environment Alternative Effects of Alternative Geology and Seismicity No Action No effects anticipated. Geology and Seismicity Proposed Action IBC standards required. Geology and Seismicity Action Alternative IBC standards required. Soils No Action No effects anticipated. Soils Proposed Action Located in corporate boundaries, site complies with FPPA and IFPA. Soils Action Alternative Located in corporate boundaries, site complies with FPPA and IFPA. Water Resources and Water Quality No Action No effects anticipated. Water Resources and Water Quality Proposed Action Silt fences and gravel will be implemented to prevent sediment issues. Water Resources and Water Quality Action Alternative Silt fences and gravel will be implemented to prevent sediment issues. Flood Plain Management No Action No effects anticipated. Flood Plain Management Proposed Action No effects anticipated. Flood Plain Management Action Alternative No effects anticipated. Air Quality No Action No effects anticipated. Air Quality Proposed Action Heavy equipment may temporarily affect air quality, no long-term impacts are anticipated. Air Quality Action Alternative Heavy equipment may temporarily affect air quality, no long-term impacts are anticipated. Terrestrial and Aquatic Environment No Action No effects anticipated. Terrestrial and Aquatic Environment Proposed Action Drainage may be altered in the short-term, but no long-term, effects are anticipated. Terrestrial and Aquatic Environment Action Alternative Drainage may be altered in the short-term, but no long-term, effects are anticipated. Wetlands No Action No effects anticipated. Wetlands Proposed Action No effects anticipated. Wetlands Action Alternative No effects anticipated. Threatened and Endangered Species No Action No effects anticipated. Threatened and Endangered Species Proposed Action No effects anticipated. Threatened and Endangered Species Action Alternative No effects anticipated. Hazardous Materials No Action No effects anticipated. Hazardous Materials Proposed Action No hazardous wastes are anticipated. Hazardous Materials Action Alternative No hazardous wastes are anticipated. Zoning and Land Use No Action No effects anticipated. Zoning and Land Use Proposed Action No effects anticipated. Zoning and Land Use Action Alternative No effects anticipated. Visual Resources No Action No effects anticipated. Visual Resources Proposed Action No effects anticipated. Visual Resources Action Alternative No effects anticipated. Noise No Action No effects anticipated. Noise Proposed Action Construction activities may temporarily increase noise levels. No long-term effects are anticipated. Noise Action Alternative Construction activities may temporarily increase noise levels. No long-term effects are anticipated. Public Services and Utilities No Action No effects anticipated. Public Services and Utilities Proposed Action Temporary water service interruption may occur. Public Services and Utilities Action Alternative Temporary water service interruption may occur. Traffic and Circulation No Action No effects anticipated. Traffic and Circulation Proposed Action Construction activities may temporarily increase traffic. No long-term effects on traffic are anticipated. Traffic and Circulation Action Alternative Construction activities may temporarily increase traffic. No long-term effects on traffic are anticipated. Environmental Justice No Action No effects anticipated. Environmental Justice Proposed Action No effects anticipated. Environmental Justice Action Alternative No effects anticipated. Safety and Security No Action No effects anticipated. Safety and Security Proposed Action OSHA standards required and IBC standards required. Safety and Security Action Alternative OSHA standards required and IBC standards required. Cultural Resources No Action No effects anticipated. Cultural Resources Proposed Action No effects anticipated. Cultural Resources Action Alternative No effects anticipated. Historic Architecture No Action No effects anticipated. Historic Architecture Proposed Action No effects anticipated. Historic Architecture Action Alternative No effects anticipated. Archaeological Resources No Action No effects anticipated. Archaeological Resources Proposed Action No effects anticipated. Archaeological Resources Action Alternative No effects anticipated. Tribal Coordination and Religious Sites No Action No effects anticipated. Tribal Coordination and Religious Sites Proposed Action No effects anticipated. Tribal Coordination and Religious Sites Action Alternative No effects anticipated. 4. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 4.1 Public Notification On October 27, 2005, the City of Paris filed a petition requesting an amendment to the City of Paris Zoning Ordinance. The petition requested that the City Planning Commission grant a special use permit for the property described herein as the Proposed Action site. The intent of the rezoning request was to allow the construction of a government building on the Proposed Action site to be used as a training facility by the City of Paris Fire Department. The Petition included a notice of a public hearing before the City Planning Commission, held at City Hall, Paris, Illinois on November 3, 2005. The Petition to Amend and Public Hearing Notice, and the minutes of the November 3, 2005 meeting are provided as Figures 9 and 10 of Appendix C, respectively. Figure 11 of Appendix C includes minutes of the City of Paris’ November 14, 2005 City Council meeting in which the City Council approved the Planning Commission’s recommendation to approve the request for the special use permit that would allow the construction of a fire department training facility on the Proposed Action site. In addition to the rezoning notice and public meeting, several newspaper articles have been published in the local newspaper, the Paris Beacon, which discuss the county’s need to construct an emergency training facility. The newspaper articles as well as the July 14, 2006 Public Notice of the intent to construct a Training and Decontamination Equipment Storage Facility and preparation of an EA to evaluate the impacts of the Proposed Action are provided in Appendix D. 5. MITIGATION MEASURES AND PERMITS 5.1 Mitigation Mitigation of impacts from the preferred alternative requires the following procedures to be followed: * Provide the appropriate management practices for stormwater control during the construction of the proposed project. * Traffic control. * If potential artifacts or historic materials are discovered during construction, the work will be suspended and the SHPO will be contacted. 5.2 Permits Local utility and/or building permits may be required. 6. CONSULTANTS AND REFERENCES Federal Agency Coordination Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Region V, Jeanne Millin – Regional Environmental Officer (REO), 536 South Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60605, phone (312) 408-5500. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Region V, Deborah Wagner – CSEP Program Manager, 536 South Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60605, phone (312) 408-5500. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Region V, Amanda Ratiliff – Regional Preparedness Officer (REP), 536 South Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60605, phone (312) 408-5500. U.S. Department of Agriculture – Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Ray Coombes – District Conservationist, 11757 IL Hwy 1, Paris, IL 61944-2212, phone (217) 465-5325 (ext. 3). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Louisville District, Col. Raymond G. Midkiff – Commander and District Engineer, P. O. Box 59, Louisville, Kentucky 40201-0059, phone (502) 315-6900. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), Joyce Collins – Assistant Field Supervisor, 8588 Route 148, Marion, Illinois 62959-4565, phone (618) 997-2012. State and Local Agency Coordination City of Paris, Craig Smith – Mayor, 110 West Washington Street, Paris, Illinois, 61944, phone (217) 465-7601. Edgar County Board, James Keller – County Board Chairman, 115 West Court Street, County Courthouse, Paris, Illinois 61944-1739, phone (217) 466-7433. Edgar County Public Health Department, Eddie McFarland – Administrator, 502 Shaw Avenue, Paris, Illinois 61944, (217) 465-2212. Illinois Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Land and Water Resources, Steven Chard – Acting Chief, State Fairgrounds, P.O. Box 19281, Springfield, Illinois 62794, phone (217) 782-6297. Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Endangered Species Consultation Program, Rich Lewis, One Natural Resources Way, Springfield, Illinois 62702, phone (217) 785-5500. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Bernard Killian – Deputy Director, 1021 North Grand Avenue East P.O. Box 19276, Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276, phone (217) 782-3397. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Air, Donald Sutton – Manager, Permit Section, 1021 North Grand Avenue East, P.O. Box 19276, Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276, phone (217) 782-2113. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Land, Jan Ogden – FOIA Coordinator, 1021 North Grand Avenue East, P.O. Box 19276, Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276, phone (217) 782-9878. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Bureau of Water, Janet Christer – FOIA Coordinator, 1021 North Grand Avenue East, P.O. Box 19276, Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276, phone (217) 782-8482. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Emergency Response, Carolyn Wright – FOIA Coordinator, 1021 North Grand Avenue East, P.O. Box 19276, Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276, phone (217) 588-1677. Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, Anne Haaker – SHPO, 1 Old State Capitol Plaza, Springfield, Illinois 62701-1507, phone (217) 782-4836. Publications Central United States Earthquake Consortium - 2630 E. Holmes Rd., Memphis, TN 38118 Internet site: http://www.cusec.org. FEMA. 2005. Map Service Center: Public Flood Map. Internet site: http://msc.fema.gov. Google Maps. Internet site: http://maps.google.com/. Hill, John R. 2002. Earthquake Near Evansville: Another Warning of Things to Come. The Trustees of Indiana University, Indiana Geological Survey. Internet site: http://igs.indiana.edu/geology/earthquakes/preparedness/index.cfm. Illinois Department of Transportation and The Illinois State Historical Society. 1973. Historical Marker at Kiwanis Park, west side of IL 1, at north edge of Paris. Internet site: http://www.historyillinois.org/frames/markers/247.htm. Maverick Energy, Inc. 2002. Geology and History of Illinois Basin. Internet site: http://www.maverickenergy.com/illinois.htm. Pavlis, Gary L., et. al. 2005. Structure and Seismicity of the Wabash Valley Seismic Zone. Department of Geological Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington IN. Internet site: http://erp-web.er.usgs.gov/reports/annsum/vol45/ceu/03hqgr0103ann.htm. Southern Illinois University. 2003. Earthquakes and the New Madrid Seismic Zone. Department of Geology. Internet site: http://www.science.siu.edu/geology/quakes/ nmadrid.html. Swann, David H. 2006. A Summary of Geologic History of the Illinois Basin. Illinois Oil and Gas Association. Internet site: http://www.ioga.com/Special/Geohist.htm. Treworgy, Janis D. 1981. Structural features in Illinois: a compendium. Illinois State Geological Survey Circular 519. 22 p. U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Census 2000 Demographic Profile Highlights. Internet site: http://www.census.gov/. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Wetland Maps. Internet site: http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1999. Soil Survey of Edgar County, Illinois. Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station Soil Report 164. Internet site: http://soils.usda.gov/survey/online_surveys/illinois/edgar/man.pdf. U.S. Geological Survey. 2005. Earthquake Hazards Program – 1997 Maximum Considered Earthquake Ground Motion for the Conterminous 48 States. Internet site: http://eqdesign.cr.usgs.gov/html/design-lookup.html. Willman, H. B. et. al. 1975. Handbook of Illinois stratigraphy. Illinois State Geological Survey Bulletin 95. 261 p. Willman, H. B.; Frye, John C. 1970. Pleistocene stratigraphy of Illinois. Illinois State Geological Survey Bulletin 94. 204 p. 7. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS No other projects are planned in the project vicinity or in nearby areas. Therefore, no adverse cumulative impacts are anticipated to occur in conjunction with the proposed action. 8. LIST OF PREPARERS Applicant Representative Duane Fidler Assistant Coordinator Edgar County ESDA P.O. Box 1002 Paris, Illinois 61944 Client Manager Kenneth W. Liss, L.P.G. Director, Springfield Office Andrews Environmental Engineering, Inc. 3535 Mayflower Boulevard Springfield, Illinois 62711-9405 Project Manager and Principal Investigator Mahlon T. Hewitt III, L.P.G. Hydrogeologist Andrews Environmental Engineering, Inc. 3535 Mayflower Boulevard Springfield, Illinois 62711-9405 Investigator & Preparer Brian A. Manci Environmental Scientist III Andrews Environmental Engineering, Inc. 3535 Mayflower Boulevard Springfield, Illinois 62711-9405 Building Design Dan Pederson Jack Walters & Sons, Corp. 6600 Midland Court P.O. Box 388 Allenton, Wisconsin 53002 9. LIST OF DISTRIBUTION The EA will be available for review by the appropriate state agencies, as well as the public. A copy of the EA will be sent to the following: * Jeanne Millin, Federal Emergency Management Agency Region V, Regional Environmental Officer, Chicago, Illinois; * Deborah Wagner, Federal Emergency Management Agency Region V, CSEP Program Manager, Chicago, Illinois; * Amanda Ratliff, Federal Emergency Management Agency Region V, Regional Preparedness Officer, Chicago, Illinois; * Duane Fidler, Edgar County ESDA, Paris, Illinois; * Jana Fairow, Illinois Emergency Management Agency, CSEP Program Manager, Springfield, Illinois; and * Public Availability, Paris Public Library, Paris, Illinois. APPENDICES 1.1 APPENDIX A – FIGURES Figure 1 Regional Map Figure 2 Locator Map Figure 3 Project Area Figure 4 Proposed Action/Alternative Action Location Figure 5 Floor Plan – Proposed/Alternative Action Figure 6 NRCS Soil Map, Paris, Edgar County, Illinois Figure 7 Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map for Paris, Edgar County, Illinois Figure 8 National Wetlands Inventory Map for Paris, Edgar County, Illinois APPENDIX B – ACRONYMS LIST OF ACRONYMS APE Area of Potential Effect ASTM American Society for Testing Materials CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations CSEP Chemical Stockpile and Emergency Preparedness EA Environmental Assessment EDR Environmental Data Resources, Inc. EIS Environmental Impact Statement EMS Emergency Medical Service EO Executive Order ESA Endangered Species Act ESDA Edgar County Emergency Services & Disaster Agency FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act HAZMAT Hazardous Material(s) IBC International Building Code IDOA Illinois Department of Agriculture IEMA Illinois Emergency Management Agency IEPA Illinois Environmental Protection Agency IHPA Illinois Historic Preservation Agency MSFCMA Magnunson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NCA Noise Control Act of 1972 NECD Newport Chemical Depot NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Act PFD Paris Fire Department SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer TDES Training and Decontamination Equipment Storage USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service UST Underground Storage Tank APPENDIX C – AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE Figure 1 Illinois Department of Agriculture Figure 2 Department of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Figure 3 Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Figure 4 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Figure 5 Illinois Department of Natural Resources Figure 6 City of Paris Figure 7 Edgar County Commissioners Figure 8 Illinois Historic Preservation Agency Figure 9 Petition Requesting Amendment of the City of Paris Zoning Ordinance Figure 10 Paris Plan Commission Meeting Schedule and Minutes Figure 11 Paris City Council Minutes APPENDIX D – PUBLIC NOTICE APPENDIX E – EDR NEPACHECK APPENDIX F – EDR RADIUS MAP WITH GEOCHECK APPENDIX G – PHOTOGRAPHS 1 Abraham Lincoln ?? ?? ?? ?? Training and Decontamination Equipment Storage Facility – Paris, IL Andrews Environmental Engineering, Inc. Final Draft Environmental Assessment Page ii Training and Decontamination Equipment Storage Facility – Paris, IL Andrews Environmental Engineering, Inc. Final Draft Environmental Assessment Page 35 Training and Decontamination Equipment Storage Facility – Paris, IL Andrews Environmental Engineering, Inc. Final Draft Environmental Assessment