Draft Environmental Assessment - · PDF fileDraft Environmental Assessment Residential Construction in Galena, Alaska FEMA-DR-4122-AK April 22, 2014 U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Draft Environmental Assessment

Residential Construction in Galena, Alaska

FEMA-DR-4122-AK

April 22, 2014

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

FEMA Region X

130 228th Street SW

Bothell, WA 98021-9796

Draft Galena EA 2 April 22, 2014

Contents

LIST OF ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................. 4

I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 6

1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 6

1.2 Disaster Event .................................................................................................................. 7

III. ALTERNATIVES................................................................................................................ 9

3.1 Alternative 1 – No Action ................................................................................................ 9

3.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative – Rebuilding or New Construction of

Residences in New Town............................................................................................................ 9

3.3 Alternatives considered but not carried forward ............................................................ 11

IV. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ........... 11

4.1 Physical Resources ......................................................................................................... 12

4.1.1 Effects to Geology, Seismicity, and Soils – No Action Alternative ....................... 13

4.1.2 Effects to Geology, Seismicity, and Soils – Proposed Action Alternative ............. 14

4.1.3 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................... 14

4.2 Water Resources ............................................................................................................. 14

4.2.1. Surface, Ground and Water Quality........................................................................ 14

4.2.2 Floodplains (EO 11988 Floodplain Management) .................................................. 15

4.2.3 Wetlands (EO 11990 Protection of Wetlands) ........................................................ 15

4.2.4 Effects to Water Resources – No Action Alternative .............................................. 16

4.2.3 Effects to Water Resources – Proposed Action Alternative .................................... 16


4.3 Biological Resources ...................................................................................................... 17

4.3.1 The Endangered Species Act (ESA) ....................................................................... 17

4.3.2 T h e Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection

Act 18

4.3.3 Effects to Biological Resources – No Action Alternative ....................................... 18

4.3.4 Effects to Biological Resources – Proposed Action Alternative ............................. 18


4.4 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................... 19


4.4.3 Effects to Cultural Resources – No Action Alternative .......................................... 20

4.4.4. Effects to Cultural Resources – Proposed Action Alternative ................................ 20


4.5 Socioeconomic Conditions ............................................................................................. 21

4.5.1 Effects to Socioeconomic Conditions – No Action Alternative .............................. 21

4.5.2 Effects to Socioeconomic Conditions – Proposed Action Alternative .................... 21

4.6 Cumulative Effects ......................................................................................................... 22

V. MITIGATION MEASURES REQUIRED ........................................................................... 22

VI. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ............................................................................................... 23

VII. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 24

VIII. LIST OF PREPARERS ..................................................................................................... 24

VIII. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 25

APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................... 28

APPENDIX B................................................................................................................................ 32

APPENDIX C ............................................................................................................................... 33


Figure 1: City of Galena, Alaska, Location map ............................................................................ 8

Figure 2: Proposed Project Site. .................................................................................................... 10

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ADFG Alaska Department of Fish & Game

AFCEE Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment

ANTHC Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium

APE Area of Potential Effect

AST Above Ground Storage Tank

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BMPs Best Management Practices

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CWA Clean Water Act

DEC Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

DHS&EM Alaska Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management

EA Environmental Assessment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EFH Essential Fish Habitat

EO Executive Order

EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FPPA Farmland Protection Policy

FOL Forward Operating Location

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

FWCA Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

MSL Mean Sea Level

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration

NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Act

PA Public Assistance Program

REAA Regional Educational Attendance Area

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office/Officer

TSCA Toxic Substance Control Act


UST Underground Storage Tank

URARPAPA Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act

US United States

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USAF United States Air Force

USC United States Code

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS United States Geological Survey

WSRA Wild and Scenic Rivers Act


I. INTRODUCTION In response to spring flooding and Alaska Governor Sean Parnell’s request for Federal

Assistance, on June 25, 2013, the President issued a major disaster declaration (FEMA-DR-4122-

AK) for the State of Alaska making available federal assistance to help people and communities

recover. Major flooding occurred from May 17 to June 11, 2013 along the Yukon, Koyukuk,

Copper, and Gulkana Rivers. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA) Individual Assistance (IA) and Public Assistance (PA) Programs

were designated for the Alaska Gateway, Lower Yukon, Yukon Flats, and Yukon Koyukuk

Regional Educational Attendance Areas (REAAs). PA only was also designated for the Copper

River REAA. Under the declaration, all boroughs and REAAs in the State of Alaska were

eligible to apply for assistance under FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP).

The City of Galena (City) is located along the Yukon River within the Yukon Koyukuk REAA,

and the City sustained major damage to public infrastructure and private property during the

spring flooding event. The City and other eligible applicants within the City have applied through

the Alaska Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (DHS&EM) to FEMA

for funding and other assistance resulting from response and recovery actions. FEMA funding is

proposed for recovery and mitigation activities within the City under several funding authorities

including FEMA’s IA, PA, and HMGP programs.

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and its implementing regulations at 40

C.F.R. Part 1500 and 44 C.F.R. Part 10, direct FEMA to take into consideration the environmental

consequences of proposed actions during the decision-making process. FEMA must comply with

NEPA before making federal funds available under the PA, IA, and HMGP Programs.

For certain actions, FEMA ensures compliance with NEPA through the preparation of an

Environmental Assessment (EA). An EA is a concise public document that serves to provide

evidence of the environmental impacts of a Preferred Action Alternative. The EA includes

alternatives to aid in decision making and concludes with one of two findings: a Finding of No

Significant Impact (FONSI) or a Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS). FEMA must prepare an EIS when significant environmental impacts are anticipated and

cannot be mitigated.

1.1 Background

The City of Galena was established in 1918 near an old Athabascan fish camp. It is located on

the north bank of the Yukon River, 45 miles east of Nulato and 270 air miles west of Fairbanks.

The Koyukon Athabascans inhabited the Galena area as nomadic tribes living in temporary

encampments. After 1920, residents of Louden, a native winter village upstream moved to the

City and the village of Louden was eventually abandoned. The City encompasses 17.9 square

miles of land and 6.1 square miles of water, and is classified as an isolated town/Sub-Regional

Center (GEDC, 2007). The City is composed of several geographically identifiable areas: the

airport which is surrounded by a ring levee, Old Town which is located south of the airfield


along the Yukon River, and New Town located east of the airfield (Figure 1). A small

subdivision call Crow Creek east of New Town is also included. Undeveloped areas within

Galena include forested lands used for hunting and gathering of firewood and berries,

undeveloped parcels within existing platted developments, water bodies such as the Yukon River

and Alexander Lake, wetlands, and discontinuous permafrost zones.

The Galena airport was previously a U.S. Air Force (USAF) base- the Galena Forward Operating

Location (FOL)- and was decommissioned in 1994. Upon decommissioning, most of the USAF

facilities were turned over to the State. The airport facilities now have a patchwork of ownership,

though the majority is mostly operated and maintained by the Alaska Department of

Transportation, the City, and the Galena School District. The School District operates the Galena

Interior Learning Academy (GILA), which is a boarding school that houses and supports up to

250 students in a typical year. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Bureau of Land

Management (BLM), Alaska State Troopers, and Alaska Department of Fish and Game also have

facilities at the airport (USAF, 2007).

Old Town, currently comprised of private residences, some private businesses and government

offices, was the original city center established in the 1920s. Following a severe flood event in

1971, which devastated the Old Town area, New Town was established. The City’s primary

services and governmental functions relocated to New Town, including city offices, a health

clinic, schools, the public works compound, and a solid waste transfer station. Solid waste is then

transferred to a City managed solid waste landfill seven miles east of the city.

1.2 Disaster Event

The 2013 Spring Floods Disaster caused severe, widespread threats and damage to life and

property. Ice jams caused major floods with subsequent riverine flooding throughout multiple

communities, causing substantial damage to private residences, public infrastructure, and

businesses. Floods impacted communities in the Alaska Gateway, Copper River, Lower Yukon,

Yukon Flats, and Yukon-Koyukuk Regional Educational Attendance Areas (REAA). Eight

heavily impacted communities include Alakanuk, Circle, Eagle, Emmonak, Fort Yukon, Galena,

Hughes, and Tok.

Floods resulted in damage to homes, businesses, and public infrastructure. Approximately 194

homes were damaged throughout the disaster declared area. Public infrastructure damage was

primarily to roads and bridges. Additional damage including hazardous material spills, damaged

sewer systems, and power failures affected multiple communities. This significant impact to

infrastructure complicated emergency sheltering, transient housing, and recovery of individuals

and families who lost their homes.

In the City of Galena, the majority of the flood damages was to residences and public

infrastructure in both Old Town and New Town. All of Old Town was severely impacted by

flooding and ice flow. While New Town was flooded, with some areas impacted by ice flow,

damage was not as severe as Old Town. The ring levee surrounding the airport complex was

damaged, but did not breach. Individuals were able to evacuate to the airport and subsequently

be evacuated to Fairbanks, Anchorage and other places.


Figure 1: City of Galena, Alaska, Location Map showing Old Town location south of Galena Airport and New

Town location east of Galena Airport

II. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

The purpose of FEMA funding assistance in the City is to reduce or eliminate immediate threats

to life, public health and safety, and improved property; provide housing solutions for

individuals and families displaced from the event; and help the community to rebuild, such that it

is more disaster resilient. FEMA conducts this through the Stafford Act Programs of Public

Assistance, Individual Assistance and Hazard Mitigation. Under the authority of Section 408 of

the Stafford Act, FEMA’s IA Program provides for housing solutions for disaster survivors in

the affected areas whose homes are uninhabitable or destroyed. FEMA typically addresses

disaster-related housing requirements first with short-term sheltering, then rental assistance, and

then through provision of direct temporary housing units. In insular areas, such as Galena,

FEMA can augment its traditional assistance to facilitate permanent housing repairs for primary

residences.

This flood event created a need for re-establishing functional, safe, reliable, and effective public

services, infrastructure, and housing. These are critical elements in the rebuilding and recovery

effort, and are essential for public health and safety and the re-establishment of the community.

One way to address the immediate housing need is through the Permanent Housing Construction

program, which was authorized for qualified individuals for this disaster. Permanent Housing

Construction (PHC) provides additional services to impacted individuals beyond FEMA’s


traditional temporary housing assistance. Services authorized by PHC include purchasing of

supplies and building materials, shipping supplies and building materials, and constructing new

homes destroyed by the event.

Authorization of this program was based upon many factors, but some primary factors include:

remote location of the City in the interior of Alaska

transportation limitations for delivering construction and rebuilding supplies to the area

shortage of construction supplies in or near the City, and

seasonal restrictions on construction during the winter months

III. ALTERNATIVES In accordance with NEPA, FEMA must identify and evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives that

would meet the purpose and need for the action. Due to the same factors that warranted the PHC

approval, the identification of a range of reasonable alternatives is extremely limited. Therefore,

this EA only identified two alternatives for evaluation: Alternative 1 is No Action, whereby no

Permanent Housing Construction would be provided. Alternative 2 is the Proposed Action, whereby

FEMA Permanent Housing Construction would be provided for reconstruction and new

construction of housing in New Town.

3.1 Alternative 1 – No Action

Under the No Action Alternative, FEMA would not provide PHC assistance for the replacement

or new construction of homes destroyed during the flooding event. Individuals would still receive

financial assistance through FEMA’s normal IA assistance program. Unmet needs would

continue to be pursued for those that maximize the FEMA grant funds and are still unable to

occupy a safe and secure house. Home owners who lost their homes would continue to receive

rental assistance. The City has limited rental housing available, so some homeowners would

likely seek housing options in different cities and towns, at a significant distance from Galena.

This alternative will be evaluated for the effects of not providing permanent housing assistance and

will provide a benchmark against which the other alternative will be evaluated.

3.2 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative – Rebuilding or New Construction of

Residences in New Town

Under the Proposed Action Alternative, FEMA would provide funding and other assistance to

eligible IA applicants for the demolition, if necessary, and the reconstruction or new construction

of eligible homes in the New Town area of Galena. FEMA would provide funding, purchase

materials, shipping, and contract labor, as needed, for four permanent housing rebuilds in New

Town at sites zoned for residential use. Volunteers would perform the majority of the labor, but

some specialty construction, such as installation of the Heat Recovery Ventilation, would be

conducted by contractors who would be paid by FEMA.


All four proposed sites are located within the existing Alexander Lake Subdivision (see Figure

2). Rebuilding or new construction would be consistent with applicable City building codes and

standards. For three of the proposed projects, the housing activities would require the demolition

and disposal of the condemned housing units. Installation of new utilities would include

placement and hook up of a fresh water tank located in the house, a sewage holding tank located

immediately adjacent to the new structure at grade or partially below grade, and overhead power

connection. The homes would be reconstructed on the same lots substantially within the same

footprint. The fourth structure would be constructed on an undeveloped lot.

The anticipated construction methodology is typical for the area. The construction footprint of

the site would be cleared of vegetation and the lot graded utilizing a bull dozer, tractor loader

backhoe or other similar excavation equipment. Gravel obtained from the local borrow pit would

be hauled by dump truck to the site, deposited and spread over cleared site, then graded and

compacted. Piles would then be hammered into the ground to establish the elevation foundation

for the new structure. The proposed new structures are cold climate housing kits that could be

constructed on site. Utilities would be installed during or after the housing kits are assembled.

Figure 2: Map depicting Alexander Lake Subdivision plat with proposed lots for rebuilding residential structures

highlighted: Green for new construction and blue for reconstruction.


3.3 Alternatives considered but not carried forward

Other alternative housing solutions were explored to meet the need, such as rental assistance and

temporary housing. Rental resources in the City are limited. Rental resources in other cities and

villages were available, but would not support or facilitate rebuilding efforts by individuals.

Temporary housing was deemed impracticable due to the prohibitive cost of shipping and

maintaining them, as well as designs not suitable to the subarctic weather. Since these other

housing solutions were determined to be insufficient FEMA authorized PHC.

Alternative sites for recovering City functions were considered as part of the 8 Step floodplain

process, but ruled infeasible or impracticable due to the extensive floodplain. This includes

rebuilding in Old Town, which has extreme depths of flooding and a high risk from ballistic ice.

Relocating to other areas adjacent or beyond the City limits, and further away from the Yukon

River, was also explored. Given land ownership issues, subsistence resources located around the

City, the extensive floodplain which extends beyond the City limits, and extensive time for

coordinating such an effort, it was deemed infeasible to pursue due to the immediate need to

provide housing solutions.

In a longer term perspective, FEMA did activate the Federal Disaster Recovery Coordinator, who

is working with the DHS&EM, the City, the Louden Tribe and other Federal, State and non-

governmental entities in identifying long term solutions to make the City more resilient.

IV. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL

CONSEQUENCES The NEPA compliance process requires federal agencies to consider direct and indirect impacts to

the environment. This section discusses the existing condition of affected resources and the

potential effects of the No Action and Proposed Action alternatives. Resources not impacted or

deemed to have negligible impacts are the following:

Air Quality: The project is not in a nonattainment area, and is located in an area that is

sparsely developed. Construction would create dust and vehicle and equipment

emissions; however, impacts would be temporary and short term. The project replaces

existing facilities and does not increase current operations that would emit air pollutants

above current levels.

Climate: The project will not affect climate nor will climate change in and of itself impact

the project. Other resources influence by climate change will be addressed in those

resource evaluations.

Coastal Resources: The project area contains no coast and is hundreds of miles from the

nearest coast.

Hazardous Materials and Waste: The project area was subject to contamination from the

flood but was evaluated for any elevated residual contamination post event. The project

will not generate hazardous waste outside of normal residential use.

Land Use: No change will occur to land use designation.


Noise: Short-term construction-related noise is typical for that area during summer

construction season and the project would not exceed regulatory standards.

Safety: No elevated safety circumstances were identified beyond the typical construction

related safety scenarios.

Prime Farmland: Designated prime farmland is not present in the project area.

Traffic: No impacts will occur to existing traffic patterns or volumes.

Visual Quality: No change will occur as the project will occur within existing city limits

and be conforming to the existing neighborhood.

For the remaining resources evaluated, the effects are categorized as follows:

None/Negligible: The effects of the alternative on environmental resources would either be

undetectable or, if detected, would be slight and localized. Impacts would be well below

regulatory standards, if applicable.

Minor: The effects of the alternative on environmental resources would be measurable, although

the changes would be small and affect only the immediate vicinity where the action would take

place. Impacts would be well within regulatory standards. Mitigation measures would reduce

potential environmental effects and environmental impacts would be negligible.

Moderate: The effects of the alternative would have both localized and regional scale impacts.

Mitigation measures would be necessary and the measures would reduce potential adverse effects.

Major: The alternative would have substantial consequences on a local and regional level.

Impacts would exceed regulatory standards. Mitigation measures to offset adverse impacts would

reduce potential adverse effect, but long-term changes to the resource would be expected.

4.1 Physical Resources

The City of Galena is located in west-central Alaska in the Central Subregion of the Yukon

River Physiographic Region. The Central Subregion is composed of the lowlands, plains, and

interior highlands drained by the Yukon River and its tributaries between the Koyukuk and

Tanana River watersheds. The entire Yukon Valley area is characterized by meandering and

braided streams. Oxbow lakes, point-bar accretionary ridges, and river chutes combine to create

a ridges-and-trough topography that reflects the constant readjustment of the meandering Yukon

River system as initiated by seasonal flooding events. In general, large quantities of sediment are

deposited along the inside of meander loops, whereas the opposite banks experience extensive

erosion (CH2MHill, 2011).

The broad flats surrounding Galena are bounded by hills and mountains to the south, northwest

and northeast ranging from 300 meters to more than 600 meters in elevation. Bedrock exposures

consist primarily of sedimentary, igneous, and volcanic rocks. The sedimentary rock consists of

Cretaceous age sandstone, shale, and conglomerate. Volcanic rock of undetermined age is found

in isolated exposures and consists of basaltic to andesitic rock. Exposed metamorphic rocks of

Paleozoic age consist of schist, phyllite, slate and quartzite. The depth to bedrock is unknown

(Nakanishi and Dorava, 1994). The geology of the area is dominated by undifferentiated fluvial

Quaternary sediments deposited by the Yukon River to a depth greater than 200 feet. These

sediments consist of unconsolidated stratified layers of silt and sand near the top of the sequence,


underlain by gravel, sandy gravel, silty sand, and sand (CH2MHill, 2011).

According to mapping completed by the Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys

(DGGS), the entire City is underlain by discontinuous permafrost, and experiences melting and

sinkholes (City of Galena Mitigation Planning Team, 2010; Nakanishi and Dorava, 1994).

Periodic, uneven settling throughout the years within the City has damaged buildings and roads

constructed in permafrost areas (City of Galena Mitigation Planning Team, 2010).

Permafrost is defined as soil, sand, gravel, or bedrock that has remained below 32°F for two or

more years. Permafrost can exist as massive ice wedges and lenses in poorly drained soils or as

relatively dry matrix in well-drained gravel or bedrock. During the summer, the surficial soil

material thaws to a depth of a few feet, but the underlying frozen materials prevent drainage.

Permafrost melting (or degradation) occurs naturally as a result of climate change, although this

is usually a very gradual process. Thermokarst is the process by which characteristic land forms

result from the melting of ice-rich permafrost. As a result of thermokarst, subsidence often

creates depressions that fill with melt water, producing water bodies referred to as thermokarst

lakes or thaw lakes.

Human induced ground warming can often degrade permafrost much faster than natural

degradation caused by a warming climate. Permafrost degradation can be caused by constructing

warm structures on the ground surface allowing heat transfer to the underlying ground. Under

this scenario, improperly designed and constructed structures can settle as the ground subsides,

resulting in loss of the structure or expensive repairs. Permafrost is also degraded by damaging

the insulating vegetative ground cover, allowing the summer thaw to extend deeper into the soil

causing subsidence of ice-rich permafrost, often leading to creation of thermokarst water bodies

(City of Galena Mitigation Planning Team, 2010).

The entire geographic area of Alaska, and subsequently the City, is prone to the effects of an

earthquake. The Kaltag Fault follows the Yukon River and is relatively centered on the

Koyukuk/Yukon River confluence. The Kobuk Fault Zone comprises a fault system of smaller

faults; located north of Alatna Village running east to west along the border of the Brooks Range.

The Kaltag fault and Kobuk fault zone produce intraplate earthquakes, which occur within a

tectonic plate sometimes at great distance from the plate boundaries. These types of earthquakes

can have magnitudes of 7.0 and greater (City of Galena Mitigation Planning Team, 2010).

Since 1977, 149 earthquakes have been recorded within a 100 mile radius of the City of Galena.

The average magnitude of these earthquakes is 3.0. Two exceeded magnitude 5.0. The record

event occurred on February 3, 2000, measuring M5.7 at a depth of 4.4 miles, with the epicenter

located approximately 81.4 miles from the City. There was no damage to critical facilities,

residences, non-residential buildings, or infrastructure. The City has no official record of

significant earthquake activity resulting in damage or injuries.

4.1.1 Effects to Geology, Seismicity, and Soils – No Action Alternative

Under the No Action alternative no impacts are anticipated with geology and seismicity. Soils,

specifically permafrost, would continue to be affected by normal city functions and anticipated

climate change.


4.1.2 Effects to Geology, Seismicity, and Soils – Proposed Action Alternative

No impacts to geology or seismicity would occur due to the minimal depth of disturbance from

the proposed action. According to the City’s Hazard Mitigation Plan (2010) the magnitude and

severity of earthquake impacts in the City are considered negligible. It is anticipated that injuries

would be minor, critical facilities would be shut down for less than 24 hours, less than 10 percent

of property or critical infrastructure would be severely damaged, and there would be little to no

permanent damage to transportation, infrastructure, or the economy. Based on past events, minor

shaking may be seen, or felt, but significant impacts to the community resulting in significant

infrastructure damage are not expected. Impacts to the proposed action are anticipated to remain

the same as current conditions (City of Galena Mitigation Planning Team, 2010). Construction

methodologies would account for seismic vulnerability.

Construction may result in human induced warming of the ground which could result in the

melting of permafrost and the subsequent destabilization of structures. Impacts associated with

degrading permafrost include surface subsidence and associated infrastructure, structure, and/or

access damage. The consequences would be moderate with uneven settlement of constructed

improvements and uneven finish surfaces. However, the proposed project impacts would be

negligible due to the lack of permafrost within the construction footprint of the building sites.

Adjacent permafrost to the construction footprint may be negligibly indirectly impacted by the

changed land use, but the impact would be localized to the immediate area.

Contamination of soils may occur from improperly maintained construction equipment or

accidental discharge of contaminants from equipment. The impact to soils is anticipated to be

minor.

4.1.3 Mitigation Measures

Construction design and methodologies would follow standard practice for cold climate and sub-

Arctic environments. These designs and methodologies have been developed over time to

specifically account for construction in permafrost and seismically prone areas. Implementing,

monitoring, and maintaining appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce spills and

pollution will minimize the potential for impacts to soils.

4.2 Water Resources

4.2.1. Surface, Ground and Water Quality

The Yukon River, which drains a large proportion of Alaska, is the dominant regional surface

water feature. Other surface water features include smaller streams and rivers, thaw lakes, oxbow

lakes, and river-flooded basins. Streams and rivers are characterized by low-gradients,

meandering courses, and spring flooding. Surface water drainage also occurs by overland flow

into sloughs discharging to the Yukon River. The suspended sediment content is high in spring

and summer. Many streams in the Yukon Region are classified as high quality for drinking water


purposes. However, some streams in the central subregion, principally those that drain lowlands,

are stained red-brown from natural concentrations of iron and manganese. (USAF, 2007)

In 2009, the DEC and partners sampled a total of 50 water quality and 550 physical habitat sites

along the Yukon River in an effort to characterize the condition of the main stem. Results from

water quality, sediment, and biological parameters sampled indicate naturally high water quality

conditions, inherently unstable substrates, high suspended sediment loads, and sufficient nutrient

levels to support biology. The Yukon River is a dynamic, high velocity system that supports a

relatively pristine ecosystem and multiple uses. Overall results do not indicate water quality,

sediment, biological, or habitat concerns (Yukon River Condition Summary, 2012).

4.2.2 Floodplains (EO 11988 Floodplain Management)

The majority of the City has been mapped for floodplains as depicted by FEMA Flood Insurance

Rate Maps (FIRM) panels (0201240005B and 0201240010B dated 03/01/1984). These panels

indicate that Old Town and most of New Town are located in the 100-year and 500-year

floodplains, while some areas are not mapped at all. The airport, which is protected by a ring

levee, is within Zone C, area of minimal flood hazard, usually depicted on FIRMs as above the

500-year flood level.

Per FEMA regulations (44 CFR §9.7), FEMA may assume that any facility or structure damaged

by flooding may be considered to be in a floodplain. Additionally, if flood data is not detailed or

mapped in an area, or the maps are determined potentially inaccurate, the Regional

Administrator may require the development of a flood recovery elevation. This new data is

considered “best available data.” Projects funded through the Recovery programs or carried out

by FEMA must utilize the best available flood data to guide recovery decisions, including

mitigating measures. FEMA issued a flood recovery map establishing a flood elevation of 135.5

feet (1943 C&GS Datum) and depicts the entire City within the 100 year floodplain.

Spring flooding is common on the Yukon River due to high surface runoff associated with

seasonal snow melt and the local formation of river ice dams during breakup. Erosion is common

on the river’s banks during high-flow conditions, and previously deposited floodplain sediments

are often transported further downstream (CH2MHill, 2011). Significant floods have been

reported in Galena since 1925, mostly from ice-jams. While, the 1945 flood destroyed most of

the community, the flood of record is 1971. That ice-jam flood reached an elevation of 134.7 feet

mean sea level (MSL) at Old Town (USACE, 2013).

4.2.3 Wetlands (EO 11990 Protection of Wetlands)

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) maintains the National Wetlands

Inventory (2013). According to that inventory and confirmed by a site visit, there are wetlands

within and around the City of Galena. Wetland types include Freshwater Emergent Wetlands

(PEM1/SS1C, PEM1C); Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetlands (PSS1A; PSSI/4B; PSS1/EM1A;

PSS1/EM1B; PSS4/1B; PFO1A; PF04/SS1B), Freshwater Ponds (PAB3H; PUBH), and Lakes

(L2ABH3). There are no wetlands in Old Town and very few isolated wetlands around the airport


complex. The occurrence of wetlands increases somewhat around New Town and Crow Creek

area. The undeveloped forested land to the north of town is approximately 50 percent wetland and

wetland segments are larger. Wetland presence increases along Tiger Road (Campion Road) as it

proceeds east towards the city landfill, with approximately 80 percent of the land around the road

in a designated wetland area. Wetlands are present on the proposed rebuilding lots as well as

adjacent to the lots. However, no fill of wetlands is anticipated in order to construct the new

homes.

4.2.4 Effects to Water Resources – No Action Alternative This alternative does not include any FEMA action. There would no disturbance of the earth

surface that would have the potential to impact water quality. The No Action Alternative would

have no impact on the 100-year floodplain or wetlands. However, structures within the floodplain

would continue to remain at risk to future flooding events. Residents who obtain rental housing in the

City would also continue to be at risk from future flooding. There would be no impacts to water

resources. The potential impacts from flooding (floodplain occupation) will remain moderate.

4.2.3 Effects to Water Resources – Proposed Action Alternative

Site preparation and construction of the structures has the potential to affect water quality. The proposed action may result in the discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States via surface water runoff. Sediment and pollution runoff from the site and access roads could temporarily affect the water quality of the Yukon River, Alexander Lake, and adjacent wetland areas. Due to the topography of the lots and the small construction scale, this impact is anticipated to be minor.

Impacts to the floodplain would be typical of residential housing activities resulting in negligible

impacts to the floodplain. However, continued occupancy in the floodplain would continue to

expose structures and residents to future flooding. This exposure has high risk to life potential

due to the depth and duration of past flooding events, and the extensive size of the floodplain.

The deficiencies of the ring levee surrounding the Galena Airport may eliminate a safe

evacuation location for residents in future flood events, further exacerbating the risk and

exposure to flood hazards.

See Appendix A for a more detailed analysis.


Appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be utilized to control erosion and

sediment, reduce spills and pollution, and provide habitat protection. Erosion controls must be in

place before any significant construction begins. If fill is to be stored on site, it will be covered

and contained, as appropriate. Coordination with the local floodplain administrator must occur to

obtain and comply with required permits prior to initiating work. No construction material or

debris shall be staged or disposed of in a wetland, even temporarily. Excess and unsuitable

excavated material shall not be sidecast into or placed upslope of wetlands environments.


4.3 Biological Resources

Galena falls within the Interior Bottomlands Subregion of the Interior Ecoregion of Alaska. The

bottomlands include marshy basins dotted with meandering streams, and many thaw and oxbow

lakes. This area is further characterized by forested lowlands and wetlands, and permafrost is

widespread. Vegetation consists mainly of closed stands of needleleaf, broadleaf, and mixed

forests with intermixed tall scrub-shrub communities, with smaller areas of bogs, marshes, and

wet grassy meadows (CH2MHill, 2011).

Numerous bird species stop to feed and rest on the Yukon River and nearby Innoko and

Koyukuk National Wildlife Refuges, which provide nesting habitat and migration resting areas

for waterfowl and shorebirds. Forty bird species were observed at the Galena airport complex

during a 2005 Air Force survey. Observations included species such as the American wigeon,

common goldeneye, spruce and ruffed grouse, sandhill crane, Wilson’s snipe, olive-sided and

alder flycatchers, and orange crowned, yellow, yellow-rumped, and blackpoll warblers. Several

raptors, notably the bald eagle, osprey, red-tailed hawk, great grey owl, short-eared owl, and

peregrine falcon, are also found in the area. Passerine species include the American robin, yellow

warbler, yellowrumped warbler, hermit thrush, cliff swallow, and white-crowned sparrow, and

aquatic birds include mew, herring, and glaucous gulls (CH2MHill, 2011).

Representative mammals around Galena include beaver, black bear and the less common

brown/grizzly bear, caribou, North American lynx, marten, mink, moose, muskrat, red fox,

snowshoe hare, wolf, wolverine, and several small rodent species. Many of these species are

resident, but may hibernate or migrate locally to optimum foraging grounds. Semi-aquatic

mammals such as muskrat, mink, and beaver are common in the myriad of water bodies in the

subregion (CH2MHill, 2011).

Approximately 20 species of fish inhabit a wide variety of wetlands and river systems on the

nearby Koyukuk National Wildlife Refuge and the adjacent Yukon River. Both anadromous and

resident fishes are common. Anadromous species include dolly varden; inconnu (sheefish); and

chinook, coho, and chum salmon that may spawn in the bottomlands subregion (but are unlikely

adjacent to Galena) or migrate farther upstream. Resident species are northern pike, grayling,

whitefish, sucker, burbot, and stickleback. Wood frogs are relatively common amphibian

inhabitants of the interior subregion of Alaska. No reptiles are found in the subregion

(CH2MHill, 2011).

4.3.1 The Endangered Species Act (ESA)

According to the USFWS (2013c) 16 threatened and endangered animal species occur in the

state of Alaska. None of the 16 species are present in the project area. Additionally, no critical

habitat has been designated within or near the City.

The 1999 Air Force Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) at the Galena

airport indicated that the Steller’s eider (Polysticta stelleri), federally listed as threatened and a

state species of special concern, had a rare potential of occurring in the Galena area (USAF,


1999). Steller’s eider are diving ducks that spend most of the year in shallow, near-shore marine

waters. Molting and wintering flocks congregate in protected lagoons and bays, as well as along

rocky headlands and islets. In summer, they nest on coastal tundra adjacent to small ponds or

within drained lake basins. During the breeding season they can be observed on the coastline of

the northern Atlantic feeding on aquatic insects and plants in freshwater ponds and streams

(USFWS, 2012b).

4.3.2 T h e Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

Studies conducted within the two refuges close to Galena identified 147 species of birds, 32

mammalian species, and 19 fish species (USAF, 2007). Cliff swallows (Petrochelidon

pyrrhonota) nest at the Galena airport. Protected under the MBTA, Cliff swallows prefer to nest

under the eaves of the airport facilities (USAF, 2007). The USFWS has identified the Yukon

River as having known occurrences of the American peregrine falcon and possible occurrences

of the arctic peregrine falcon (Falcoperegrinus tundrius) (USAF, 2007). Nesting and rearing are

likely to occur in June and July, respectively. Migratory birds depart for warmer climates by late

September and early October (CH2MHill, 2011).

4.3.3 Effects to Biological Resources – No Action Alternative

This alternative would have no impact on fish and wildlife. Current migration patterns, habitat

use and foraging would continue at the same levels anticipated for the area.

4.3.4 Effects to Biological Resources – Proposed Action Alternative

The Proposed Action Alternative would result in ground disturbance on land and near existing

aquatic and terrestrial habitat. Some vegetation around the perimeter of the existing disturbed areas

would be cleared to establish the construction footprint, but the amount of vegetation removal would be

minimal. For the one undeveloped lot, vegetation removal would be required to establish the

construction footprint but the vegetation removal would be limited to what is minimally necessary to

establish the construction footprint. Impacts to vegetation would be negligible due to the extensive

vegetative resources in and around the City. Impacts to terrestrial species habitat and foraging

habitats/activities would be negligible due to the substantial habitat available in the areas

surrounding Galena.

Migratory birds are present in the project area and they may nest and rear in the project area

during June and July. Most migratory birds are expected to migrate south in September and

October. Three of the proposed rebuild sites are previously disturbed within developed area of

Galena. One site would require greater vegetation removal due to its undeveloped condition. This

activity has the potential to impact migratory birds that could be nesting in the area. However,

since construction activities are anticipated to start as soon as weather and ground conditions

allow, is anticipated that migratory birds will seek other nearby available habitat and avoid the

construction sites. It is anticipated that the proposed project will have negligible impact to

migratory birds. Any migratory birds within the area that may start nesting activities in the project area


would move to other less disturbed areas upon commencement of construction activities throughout the

City.

FEMA has determined that the Proposed Action Alternative will have no effect to threatened or

endangered species as listed by the USFWS and NMFS. Although the INRMP reference

indicated a rare occurrence for Stellers Eider, the likelihood of that occurrence to happen during

the proposed actions construction is extremely remote given their habitat requirements and

present locations in Alaska. FEMA has also determined that the Preferred Action Alternative

will not adversely modify critical habitat as none has been designated in the project area. Since

no work will occur in any waterway, no impact to essential fish habitat is anticipated.


Vegetation removal would be limited to what is minimally necessary to establish the construction

footprint for rebuilding the structures and allowing for safe access. Removal of vegetation would

occur at the beginning of the construction process thereby reducing the potential to impact any

nest forming activities of migratory birds.

4.4 Cultural Resources

The Koyukon Athabascans inhabited the Galena area as nomadic tribes living in temporary

encampments following game and fish food sources to support their subsistence lifestyle. Galena

was established in 1918 near an old Athabascan fish camp called Henry’s Point. After 1920,

residents of Louden, a native winter village 13 miles upstream on the Yukon moved to Galena.

Louden was eventually abandoned. Galena became a supply and trans-shipment point for nearby

lead ore mines. A school was established in the mid-1920s, and a post office opened in 1932.

The Galena Air Field was constructed during World War II in 1941. During the 1950s, military

facilities at the Galena and Campion U.S. Air Force Stations, along with airport and road

developments, sparked growth in the community. A new community site (New Town) was

developed at Alexander Lake, about 1.5 miles east of the original town site, due to a severe flood

in 1971. The City of Galena was formally incorporated in 1971 (GDEC, 2007).

4.4.1 Structures and Facilities:

In Galena, there are no resources listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

However, there are several that have been determined eligible for listing in the NRHP. These

resources are associated with the U.S. Air Force Stations, and are located just north of Old Town.

Currently, outside of the Galena Airport facility, there are no identified resources eligible for

listing in the NRHP. Since the proposed project is located in New Town, there will be no effect

to the potentially eligible resources in located at the Air Force facility.

4.4.2 Archeology:


There have been few archaeological surveys outside of the creation of new town sites in Galena

and Native Alaskan allotment surveys. The surveys in close proximity to the Galena airport have

failed to find any cultural resources. The surveys 8 miles to the southeast [of the airport]

recorded two sites; one was a storage pit and another was a former Athabaskan settlement

(USAF, 2007).

In June 2007, the City of Galena planned to construct 7,800 feet of buried water main, 33 buried

water service line connections, and install interior plumbing for 8 homes in the Alexander Lake

Subdivision in New Town Galena using federal funds from the Indian Health Service. The

proposed project was within the Louden Loop. In compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA,

based on a review of cultural resources at the Office of History and Archaeology and

consultation with the Louden Village Council, the City determined the project would not impact

any cultural or historic sites. The City found there were no known cultural resources within the

project area. The SHPO concurred with this determination on July 25, 2007 under file # 3130-

3RANTHC.1 Only one archaeological site has been previously identified within the Alexander

Lake Subdivision - a gravesite of undetermined significance (NUL-00146).

4.4.3 Effects to Cultural Resources – No Action Alternative

Cultural Resources would not be impacted with the No Action Alternative as no construction or

building modifications would occur.

4.4.4. Effects to Cultural Resources – Proposed Action Alternative

The Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the Proposed Action Alternative encompasses the

Alexander Lake Subdivision in New Town. There are no National Register-eligible buildings

with the APE. Three buildings have been proposed for demolition. Two of those buildings are

not of sufficient age (less than 50 years old) for listing in the NRHP (Block 6, Lot 9 and 10). One

structure dates from c. 1955 (Block 2A, Lot 6) but has been determined ineligible for listing in

the NRHP though consultation with SHPO (File No: 3130-1R FEMA).

The unimproved lot where the new construction has been proposed is located at Block 7, Lot 24.

A gravesite of undetermined significance (NUL-00146) is located north of the proposed building

site. Since all construction activity will occur within and on the proposed unimproved lot, FEMA

does not anticipate that the proposed construction activities will affect the NUL-00146.

Based on research, interviews, and consultation, subject to any unanticipated discovery, FEMA

has determined that no historic properties will be affected by this undertaking. The Louden Tribe

has communicated to FEMA that they have no concerns with the proposed action in New Town.

SHPO concurred with this determination on April 14th

, 2014.

1 It should be noted that the ANTHC is conducting emergency repairs to the water treatment and distribution system

within this area in response to the 2013 ice-jam flood disaster.



In the event historically or archaeologically significant materials or sites (or evidence thereof) are

discovered during the implementation of the project or should any cultural material (e.g.,

prehistoric stone tools or flaking, human remains, historic material caches) be encountered during

construction, the project shall be immediately halted and all reasonable measures taken to avoid or

minimize harm to and secure the property until FEMA concludes consultation with the SHPO. If

human remains are discovered, the procedures for the discovery of human skeletal remains set

out in Alaska Statues 12.65.5 and 11.46.482(a)(6) shall be followed.

4.5 Socioeconomic Conditions

Galena’s local amenities include three stores, two churches, a heated indoor Olympic-sized

swimming pool, a new modern health and dental center, restaurants, bed and breakfasts, three

school facilities as well as a home school support program managed by the Galena City School

District, a University of Alaska Rural Campus, the Louden Tribal Council and City Council

offices, a magistrate’s court, an Alaska State Troopers office, and other facilities. The City is the

utility provider with electrical power derived from diesel generators supporting both New and

Old Town Galena (GEDC, 2007). Current efforts for creating energy efficiencies are currently

being explored with various recovery partners under the National Disaster Recovery Framework.

The City of Galena falls within the Koyukuk-Middle Yukon Census Subarea. According to the

2010 Census (USCB, 2013), 470 people live in Galena. This represents a decline in population

since 2005, when approximately 650 people lived in the city (GEDC, 2007). The 2000 Census

indicates an approximate Alaskan Native, or part Native population, of 67% with an approximate

minority population of 89%. The per capita income is 17,070 and approximately 25% of the

population is below the poverty level. A federally recognized tribe is located in the community,

governed by the Louden Tribal Council.

4.5.1 Effects to Socioeconomic Conditions – No Action Alternative

Implementation of the No Action Alternative would have minor impacts to the socioeconomic

conditions within Galena. All members of the community were impacted by the flood event and

FEMA’s housing assistance program assists all eligible applicants. However, for the few individuals

who are unable to rebuild their destroyed homes there is potential for the community to lose more

residents as they seek accommodation and work in other locations. This would contribute to the

continued decline in the City’s population and subsequently incrementally and indirectly

adversely impact the Galena economy and social structure.

4.5.2 Effects to Socioeconomic Conditions – Proposed Action Alternative

The Proposed Action Alternative is not expected to pose disproportionately high or adverse

public health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations and would not

cause adverse economic impacts. The Proposed Action Alternative impact to socioeconomic


conditions would be negligible. The action would encourage displaced residents to continue residency in

the community.

4.6 Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects are those that result from the incremental effect of a Proposed Action

Alternative when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions,

regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person undertakes such other action.

Cumulative effects can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, actions taking

place over a period of time.

Under both alternatives, extensive activities to assist the City have been and will continue to be

taken by various federal and state agencies. Extensive documentation exists with regard to

activities associated with the previous U.S. Air Force Base and subsequent turnover to the City.

Past flooding has been the major influence for community action relocating to the New Town

area, and various studies and efforts were undertaken in support of that. Present activities are

focused on recovery from the recent flood event. The National Disaster Recovery Framework

was activated and a Federal Disaster Recovery Coordinator assigned to the federal disaster

recovery effort. Options and priorities are currently being explored by the Community Disaster

Recovery Team to chart out a more resilient and economically vibrant community. Those efforts

will continue into the foreseeable future.

Both the no action alternative and the proposed action alternative are anticipated to have

negligible cumulative impacts to the community. The scale, type and location of the proposed

action, as well as the limited number of individuals directly and indirectly affected by the action,

does not warrant further in depth cumulative impacts analysis.

V. MITIGATION MEASURES REQUIRED The following mitigation measures are required as conditions for the FEMA proposed action:

1. Equipment must be maintained, including proper engine maintenance, adequate tire inflation,

and proper maintenance of pollution control devices. Construction equipment idling will be

minimized to only what is necessary to construct the project.

2. Appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be utilized to control erosion and

sediment, reduce spills and pollution, and provide habitat protection. Erosion controls must be

in place before any significant construction begins. If fill is stored on site, it will be covered

and contained, as appropriate.

3. Coordination with the local floodplain administrator must occur to obtain and comply with

required permits prior to initiating work.


4. No construction material or debris shall be staged or disposed of in a wetland, even

temporarily. Excess and unsuitable excavated material shall not be sidecast into or placed

upslope of wetlands environments.

5. Watering during construction would help to control airborne dust resulting from the

construction activities. A dust palliative would be applied during construction, as needed, to

help control air pollution caused by dust. This treatment would need to be reapplied

periodically to maintain its effectiveness. Reapplication would be the responsibility of the

entity maintaining the road, and would be subject to its priority and funding constraints.

6. In the event historically or archaeologically significant materials or sites (or evidence thereof)

are discovered during the implementation of the project or should any cultural material (e.g.,

prehistoric stone tools or flaking, human remains, historic material caches) be encountered

during construction, the project shall be immediately halted and all reasonable measures taken

to avoid or minimize harm to and secure the property until FEMA concludes consultation

with the SHPO. If human remains are discovered, the procedures for the discovery of human

skeletal remains set out in Alaska Statutes 12.65.5 and 11.46.482(a)(6) shall be followed.

7. If hazardous constituents are unexpectedly encountered during project activities, appropriate

measures for the proper assessment, remediation, containment and management of the

contamination should be initiated in accordance with applicable federal, state and local

regulations. Project construction would involve the use of potentially hazardous materials

(e.g., petroleum products, cement, caustics, acids, solvents, paint, electronic components,

pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, treated timber) and may result in the generation of small

volumes of hazardous wastes. Appropriate measures to prevent, minimize and control spills

of hazardous materials should be taken, and any hazardous and non-hazardous wastes

generated should be disposed in accordance with applicable federal, state and local

requirements.

VI. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT FEMA’s Draft EA was released and a public notice was posted throughout the City of Galena on

April 24, 2014, for a 14 day public review and comment period, ending May 08, 2014.

FEMA consulted with several state and federal agencies throughout the disaster response and

recovery process in the summer of 2013 to gather valuable input and to meet regulatory

requirements (see reference list for specific contacts). This coordination was integrated into the

development of the draft EA.

If no substantive public comments are received, no further public involvement will be conducted

for this EA. In the public notice distributed with the draft EA, all recipients were notified that

after the public comment period ended, provided no substantive comments were received, the EA

would be finalized and a Finding of No Significant Impact issued. The final EA and the FONSI

would be available by contacting FEMA Region 10, Attn: OEHP, 130 228th Street SW, Bothell, WA

98021.


VII. CONCLUSION

Based upon onsite review, previous studies and resource/regulatory agency consultations

undertaken in the preparation of this EA, and given the precautionary and mitigation measures, no

significant environmental impacts have been identified associated with the reconstruction, or new

construction of residential homes in the New Town area of Galena.

VIII. LIST OF PREPARERS Dorothy Weir, Environmental Specialist, FEMA

Jessica Stewart, Environmental Specialist, FEMA

Science Kilner, Deputy Regional Environmental Officer, FEMA

Mark Eberlein, Regional Environmental Officer, FEMA


VIII. REFERENCES Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). 2013. Contaminated Sites

Database: Cleanup Chronology Report for Galena AFS/Airport. Available on-line at

http://146.63.9.103/applications/spar/ccreports/Site_Report.aspx?Hazard_ID=563.

Accessed July 12, 2013.

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation; Yukon River Inter-Tribal Watershed

Council; and University of Alaska Anchorage. 2012. Yukon River Condition Summary,

2009 Available on-line at http://www.dec.state.ak.us/water/wqsar/monitoring/

documents/YukonReport_Final.pdf. Accessed July 12, 2013.

Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG). 2010. Catalog of Waters Important for

Spawning, Rearing or Migration of Anadromous Fishes—Interior Region. Available on-

line at http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/FedAidPDFs/sp10-05.pdf. Accessed July 12, 2013.

Alaska Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (ABHS). 2013. Strategic

Housing and Sheltering Report. July 15, 2013.

CH2MHill. 2011. Preliminary Assessment Former Galena Forward Operating Location, Alaska.

Prepared for Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment. Available on-line at

http://dec.alaska.gov/spar/csp/sites/Galena/docs/PA_Report_Final_MainText_092811.

pdf. Accessed July 10, 2013.

City of Galena Mitigation Planning Team. 2010. The City of Galena Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2013a. National Disaster Recovery

Framework Advance Evaluation Team Report. July 12, 2013.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 2013b. Mission Assignment COE-POD-05:

Ice-Affected Stage Frequency for DR4122). August 9, 2013.

Galena Economic Development Council (GEDC). 2007. Galena USAF Base Reuse Plan.

Available on-line at http://www.ci.galena.ak.us/vertical/Sites/%7B7DD2C4E2-487C-

4FFA-B0A8-3B19F1F000CA%7D/uploads/%7B72367952-0446-4108-A228-

CD2BC9907FC6%7D.PDF. Accessed July 10, 2013.

Golder Associates Inc. 2013. Galena Airport Levee Inspection and Geotechnical Assessment

Final Report. Submitted to US Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District. October 21, 2013.

Nakanishi, Allan S., and J.M. Dorava. 1994. Overview of environmental and hydrogeologic

conditions at Galena, Alaska. Available on-line at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1994/0525/

report.pdf. Accessed July 11, 2013.

http://www.sf.adfg.state.ak.us/FedAidPDFs/sp10-05.pdf


National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2013a. Endangered, Threatened,

and Candidate Species Under NMFS’ Authority In Alaska. Available on-line at

http://www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/protectedresources/esa/ak_nmfs_species.pdf.

Accessed July 12, 2013.

NOAA. (2013b). Essential Fish Habitat Mapper. Available on-line at

http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/habitatmapper.html. Accessed July 12, 2013.

National Park Service (NPS). 2013. National Register of Historic Places for Alaska: Yukon-

Koyukuk County. Available on-line at http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/

AK/Yukon-Koyukuk/state.html. Accessed July 12, 2013.

Swem, 2006. USAF personal communication with Ted Swem, USFWS Fairbanks Office,

regarding the potential of the Steller’s eider to occur at the Galena Airport, December.

U.S. Air Force (USAF). 2007. Environmental Assessment: Disposal of Air Force Property at

Galena Airport, Alaska. Available on-line at http://www.agnewbeck.com/pdf/interior/

Galena/Appendix_D-Environmental_Assessment.pdf. Accessed July 12, 2013.

USAF. 1999. Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan 1999-2003, Galena Airport,

Galena, Alaska.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2013. Trip Report—Galena Airfield Levee

Inspection. June 11, 2013.

U.S. Census Bureau (USCB). 2013. Galena Alaska 2010 Demographic Profile Data. Available

on-line at http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?

pid=DEC_10_DP_DPDP1. Accessed July 12, 2013.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2013a. National Wetlands Inventory. Available on-

line at http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Wetlands-Mapper.html. Accessed July 11, 2013.

USFWS. 2013b. National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Available on-line at

http://www.rivers.gov/alaska.php. Accessed July 11, 2013.

USFWS. 2013c. Species Reports: Listing and Occurrences for Alaska. Available on-line at

http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/stateListingAndOccurrenceIndividual.jsp?state=AK&

s8fid=112761032792&s8fid=112762573902. Accessed July 12, 2013.

USFWS. 2013d. Critical Habitat Mapper. Available on-line at http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov/

crithab/. Accessed July 12, 2013.

USFWS. 2012a. Spectacled Eider Fact Sheet Available on-line at http://alaska.fws.gov/

fisheries/endangered/pdf/spectacled_eider_factsheet_v2.pdf. Accessed July 12, 2013.

http://www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov/protectedresources/esa/ak_nmfs_species.pdf

http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/habitatmapper.html

http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/%20%09AK/Yukon-Koyukuk/state.html

http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/%20%09AK/Yukon-Koyukuk/state.html

http://www.agnewbeck.com/pdf/interior/%20%09Galena/Appendix_D-Environmental_Assessment.pdf

http://www.agnewbeck.com/pdf/interior/%20%09Galena/Appendix_D-Environmental_Assessment.pdf

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml

http://alaska.fws.gov/%20%09fisheries/endangered/pdf/spectacled_eider_factsheet_v2.pdf

http://alaska.fws.gov/%20%09fisheries/endangered/pdf/spectacled_eider_factsheet_v2.pdf


USFWS. 2012b. Steller’s Eider Fact Sheet. Available on-line at http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/

endangered/pdf/stellers_eider_factsheet_v2.pdf. Accessed July 12, 2013.

USFWS. 2006a. Eskimo Curlew Fact Sheet. Available on-line at http://alaska.fws.gov/

fisheries/endangered/pdf/consultation_guide/62_ESCU_Factsheet.pdf. Accessed July 12,

2013.

USFWS. 2006b. Aleutian shield-fern Fact Sheet. Available on-line at http://alaska.fws.gov/

fisheries/endangered/pdf/consultation_guide/56_ALSF_Factsheet.pdf. Accessed July 12,

2013.

USFWS. 2001. Short-tailed Albatross Fact Sheet. Available on-line at http://alaska.fws.gov/

fisheries/endangered/pdf/STALfactsheet.pdf. Accessed July 12, 2013.

http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/%20%09endangered/pdf/stellers_eider_factsheet_v2.pdf

http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/%20%09endangered/pdf/stellers_eider_factsheet_v2.pdf

http://alaska.fws.gov/%20%09fisheries/endangered/pdf/consultation_guide/62_ESCU_Factsheet.pdf

http://alaska.fws.gov/%20%09fisheries/endangered/pdf/consultation_guide/62_ESCU_Factsheet.pdf

http://alaska.fws.gov/%20%09fisheries/endangered/pdf/consultation_guide/56_ALSF_Factsheet.pdf

http://alaska.fws.gov/%20%09fisheries/endangered/pdf/consultation_guide/56_ALSF_Factsheet.pdf

http://alaska.fws.gov/%20%09fisheries/endangered/pdf/STALfactsheet.pdf

http://alaska.fws.gov/%20%09fisheries/endangered/pdf/STALfactsheet.pdf

APPENDIX A

Floodplain 8 Step Process

Step 1 is to determine whether the project is located in the floodplain or wetland. For critical actions, the

proposed project must be reviewed to determine whether it is located within the 100-year (base floodplain) or

500-year floodplain.

Floodplain

Per FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panels 0201240005B and 0201240010B, dated 03/01/1984,

much of the City of Galena is within Zone A, areas with a 1 percent annual chance of flooding. Some smaller

areas of Galena are designated within Zone B, area of moderate flood hazard, usually the area between the

limits of the 100-year and 500-year floods. The airport, which is protected by the ring levee, is within Zone C,

area of minimal flood hazard, usually depicted on FIRMs as above the 500-year flood level. Portions of the

City of Galena to the north and east are in Zone D, areas with possible but undetermined flood hazards because

no flood hazard analysis has been conducted. In summary, all of the airport is outside the 100- and 500-year

floodplain. Old Town is completely within the 100-year floodplain. The northern portion of New Town is

unmapped. The southern portion of New Town is in the 100-year floodplain, with some islands of 500-year

floodplain, such as the residential neighborhood between Alexander Avenue and Antoski Road. The Crow

Creek subdivision to the east of New Town is in both the 100- and 500-year floodplain.

The data utilized for the 1984 Flood Insurance Study was conducted over 30 years ago, which depicts areas

within the ring levee as Zone C. Per evaluation by Golder Associates Inc., under contract to the USACE, the

levee integrity has visual deficiencies. Because of these potential deficiencies, FEMA can no longer maintain

confidence that the levee will provide protection against the 1% chance flood as depicted upon the current

effective FIRM.

FEMA mission assigned the USACE to develop an ice affected stage frequency for the City (FEMA 2013b).

The current Flood Insurance Study does not account for ice jams in its modeling of the base flood. Ice jams on

the Yukon was the primary cause for flooding in the City for this disaster. The analysis and modeling utilized

currently accepted methods to determine the ice affected stage frequency. The ice jam event was determined to

have 2% probability (or commonly known as a 50 year flood event). The ice jam flooding event inundated all

areas of the City and nearly overtopped the Galena Airport ring levee. Because the frequency exceeded the 1%

chance flood event and the entire City was inundated by the event, FEMA can assume that the entire City,

including areas within the ring levee surrounding the airport, is within the base floodplain.

Based upon the ice jam affected stage frequency elevation of 135.5 feet (1943 C&GS Datum) FEMA developed

a flood recovery map to better inform recovery efforts for the City. The flood recovery map is considered best

available science for purposes of EO 11988 applicability. The flood recovery map depicts the entire City,

including the Galena Airport facility, as well as several miles beyond the City limits, to be within the 100 year

floodplain with an elevation of 135.5 feet (1943 C&GS Datum).

Wetlands

Per the United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory, there are wetlands

within and around the City of Galena. Wetland types include Freshwater Emergent Wetlands (PEM1/SS1C,

PEM1C); Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetlands (PSS1A; PSSI/4B; PSS1/EM1A; PSS1/EM1B; PSS4/1B;

PFO1A; PF04/SS1B), Freshwater Ponds (PAB3H; PUBH), and Lakes (L2ABH3). There are no wetlands in Old

Town and very few isolated wetlands around the airport complex. The occurrence of wetlands increases

somewhat around New Town and Crow Creek. The undeveloped forested land to the north of town is

approximately 50 percent wetland and wetland segments are larger. Wetland presence increases along Tiger

Road (Campion Road) as it proceeds east towards the city landfill, with approximately 80 percent of the land

around the road in a designated wetland area.

Step 2 is to notify and involve the public in the decision-making process for actions proposed in floodplains or

wetands.

A disaster-wide public notice was published in the Anchorage Daily News and the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner

on July 19, 2013. Subsequent meetings were held in July and August of 2013 to solicit community feedback

and information regarding practicable alternatives to locating in the floodplain or minimizing impacts from

flooding. Notice of availability for this EA was posted within the community on April 24, 2014

Step 3 is to identify and evaluate practicable alternatives to locating the proposed project in the floodplain or

wetland, including alternative sites and actions outside of the floodplain.

As mentioned in Step 1, all areas within the City and adjacent to the City are within the base floodplain.

Because of potential deficiencies to the ring levee, FEMA can no longer maintain confidence that the levee will

provide protection against the 1% chance flood as depicted upon the FIRM. Therefore, opportunities to utilize

developable space within the ring levee are no longer practicable for avoiding the floodplain. Due to the

extensive boundary of the floodplain, locations outside the floodplain were determined to be impracticable.

Alternative actions which serve essentially the same purpose as the proposed action, but which have less

potential to affect or be affected by the floodplain were also explored. None were initially determined.

For wetlands, although present extensively throughout the area, practicable alternative locations to avoid them

exist scattered throughout the City and the floodplain. It is anticipated that the proposed action would be able

to avoid existing wetlands and avoid adversely impacting them.

Step 4 is to identify impacts associated with occupancy and modification of floodplain and wetlands and

support of floodplain and wetland development that could result from pursuing the Proposed Action

Alternative.

All of the existing facilities within the City were damaged to some degree from the flooding event. Any repairs,

reconstruction, or hardening of the proposed residential rebuilds within the floodplain on their pre-disaster

footprint would not adversely impact the floodplain. The floodplain of the Yukon River is expansive, and new

construction in the floodplain within Galena would not measurably increase flood levels or cause adverse

downstream impacts. It is not anticipated that work within the floodplain will encourage increased occupancy

or development within the floodplain or wetlands beyond current population levels. Other factors are

influencing the growth or the lack of growth for the community. This is a remote and isolated city where

development and construction is constrained by the availability of resources and severe winter conditions. The

implementation of the Proposed Action Alternative in an already developed area is not anticipated to encourage

development beyond what is already in place or that which current infrastructure can support.

Structures would be constructed in conformance with the local floodplain ordinance approved for participation

in the National Flood Insurance Program. However, there is potential for the repaired structures to be damaged

in future flooding events. Future flooding will also impact supporting infrastructure to the residences, including

utilities. The structures, though properly anchored on a piled foundation, can still be subject to damage caused

by liquefaction or semi liquefaction of the soils due to flood inundation. Ice can still flow into New Town

through low access points based upon the terrain (like Alexander Lake) and cause direct damage. The ice may

cause displacement of water resulting in localized higher flood levels. Contamination of structures and

property associated with flood events will occur. As a result of power loss, the potential exists for mold to

occur on damaged organic elements of the flooded portion of the structures. Ancillary structures and personal

property not properly secured could be impacted by flooding or cause damage to other improved property.

Contamination may result from displaced sewage holding tanks. Due to the nature of the floodplain and the

sudden formation of ice jams, evacuation windows will be short. With the compromised airport ring levee,

evacuation to higher ground does not exist in the immediate area and there is potential that the residents cannot

evacuate and will need to shelter in place, creating a greater risk for loss of life. The Proposed Action

Alternative will maintain occupancy in the floodplain but it will only replace lost structures and not induce

future growth in the floodplain. Some filling is required but no increase will occur to the floodplain as the fill

will be sourced from a borrow pit located in the same floodplain. Rebuilding in the floodplain and specifically

within New Town will not affect the natural values and functions currently present in the Yukon floodplain.

The Proposed Action Alternative would not have any direct impacts on adjacent wetlands. Some temporary

negligible impacts to water quality may occur during the construction phase, and potential long-term negligible

water quality impacts associated with surface runoff from the cleared sites may also occur.

Step 5 is to develop measures to minimize the adverse impacts to and restore and preserve wetlands and

floodplains.

A primary driver for reducing the impacts identified in Step 4 is rebuilding the residential structures in

conformance with the local floodplain ordinance. A local floodplain permit would be obtained prior to

construction. The structures are to be elevated 1 foot above the flood recovery elevation determined by FEMA

as best available data. This will minimize the potential for harm to the structures from future flood waters. The

waste water holding tanks will be required to be anchored to prevent displacement and designed to prevent

discharge during a flood event. All structures will be elevated on pilings, which will minimize the amount of

fill for the lot. This will also eliminate potential indirect impacts to neighboring lots associated with fill in the

floodplain.

Old Town Galena is especially vulnerable to ice flow. Because of that vulnerability and the lack of

minimization measures to reduce the risk to lives, the Federal Coordinating Officer decided that no FEMA

funding for permanent facilities, including residential structures under PHC, will be allowed in Old Town

Galena. Because of that decision, the one property proposed for rebuild on the undeveloped lot will be a

relocation from Old Town Galena.

To account for the negligible indirect impacts to adjacent wetlands, applicable Best Management Practices

(BMPs) to control erosion and sediment, reduce spills and pollution, and provide habitat protection will be

deployed prior to construction. If fill stored on site for a lengthy period of time will be covered and contained.

Step 6 is to determine whether the proposed action is practicable and to reevaluate alternatives.

As stated in Step 3, the Proposed Action Alternative is the only practicable alternative. After evaluating the

impacts and possible mitigation measures, the Proposed Action Alternative still remains as the only practicable

alternative.

The Proposed Action Alternative would promote and support the continued occupancy and development of

New Town Galena. Implementation of federal and local standards, including NFIP standards, for replacement

of the structures would reduce, but not completely, the risk of flood loss. Although still subject to flooding, the

City would have less exposure to the flood and ice hazards than areas adjacent to the River like Old Town

Galena. The geographic position of New Town, along with the immediate topography and surrounding forested

resources, provide some natural minimization from ice flow aspects of flooding.

Practicable sites do not exist for the community of Galena outside of the Yukon floodplain. Although some

areas within Galena are designated above the base flood elevation, they are still below the 500 year floodplain.

During this event, which was determined to be a 50 year ice affected frequency2, all areas of Galena flooded.

Alternative actions for reducing exposure to harm and loss of life are available in New Town. Undeveloped

areas still exist in New Town Galena, as well as the Crow Creek subdivision to support the Proposed Action

Alternative.

Step 7 requires that the public be provided with an explanation of any final decision that the floodplain is the

only practicable alternative.

Notification for the proposed actions in Galena will be provided as part of the notice of availability for public

comment on this EA.

Step 8 is the review of the implementation and post-implementation phases of the proposed action to ensure that

the requirements stated in 44 CFR § 9.11 are fully implemented.

The proposed action will be constructed in accordance with applicable floodplain development requirements

and in line with the conditions outlined in the mitigation measures of the EA and the Finding of No Significant

Impact (FONSI). The FEMA Individual Assistance program will provide oversight and monitoring for

adherence and completion of the scope of work, including all applicable permit and approval conditions.

2 Crane Johnson, P.E., FEMA Mission Assignment COE-POD-05 (Ice-Affected Stage Frequency for DR4122),

August 9, 2013.

APPENDIX B

PUBLIC NOTICE

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

Draft Environmental Assessment for Residential Construction under the

Permanent Housing Construction Program

And

Notice of construction (elevations) in the Yukon River Floodplain

under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP)

Notice is hereby given that FEMA plans to assist the City of Galena by funding and constructing four (4) private

homes in the Alexander Lake Subdivision of Galena. Federal financial assistance would be provided pursuant to

the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Public Law 93-288, as

amended (The Stafford Act).

FEMA prepared a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed project pursuant to the

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, Executive Orders No. 11988 (Floodplain Management),

No. 11990 (Protection of Wetlands), No. 12898 (Environmental Justice) FEMA’s implementing regulations

found in 44 Code of Federal Regulations Part 9 and 10. The EA evaluates alternatives for potential adverse

impacts on the environmental resources present in the proposed project area. The alternatives evaluated

include: (1) no action, and (2) demolition, and the reconstruction or new construction of four eligible homes in

the New Town area of Galena.

The Draft EA is available for viewing at the following locations: Galena City Hall, Galena post office, Sweetsir

Store, Galena Liquor Store, Era and the Louden Tribal Council Office. It also is available online at KIYU.

Notice is also hereby given that the Louden Tribal Council has applied for funding under HMGP through the

Alaska Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management to elevate about 40 residential properties

that were impacted by flooding from the Yukon River in the spring 2013 ice break up. Elevations will occur in

the New Town area of Galena, and structures will be elevated at least one foot above the base flood

elevation. The design base flood elevation for this project is based on a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Study

completed in August 2013, which constitutes best available data for the base flood.

This notice will constitute as the final notice as required by Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management and

Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands for both proposed actions stated above. If no significant issues

are identified during the comment period, FEMA will finalize the EA, issue a Finding of No Significant Impact

(FONSI), and proceed with the residential construction project. FEMA will also conclude its reviews and

provide funding for the HMGP elevation project.

Please submit your written comments to FEMA Region X Environmental Officer, Mark Eberlein no later than

May 9, 2014. Comments can be submitted by:

Fax: 425-487-4613 (attn: Mark Eberlein) Email: [email protected]

or

Mail: Mark G. Eberlein

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region 10

130 228th

Street SW

Bothell, Washington 98021

mailto:[email protected]

APPENDIX C

State Historic Preservation Office Concurrences

Documents

Draft Environmental Assessment - · PDF fileDraft Environmental Assessment Residential Construction in Galena, Alaska FEMA-DR-4122-AK April 22, 2014 U.S. Department of Homeland Security