Attachment_K_Jonesport_Housing_NEPA_EA_(Final_-_Complete_Document)(Jan_2018).pdf

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

AND

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

FOR

JONESPORT HOUSING

U.S. Coast Guard Station Jonesport Jonesport, Maine

January 2018

PREPARED BY:

U. S. Coast Guard Facilities Design & Construction Center

5505 Robin Hood Road, Suite K Norfolk, Virginia 23513 Phone: 757-852-3400 ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 Project Description & Introduction ....................................................................................... 1 - 3

2.0 Project Need……………………………………………

3.0 Description of Alternatives Considered ................................................................................ 5 - 7

4.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences .................................................... 8-12

5.0 Summary of Compliance with Statutory Requirements ...................................................... 13-14

6.0 Permits, Approvals, and Consultations

7.0 Preparer ……………………………………………………………………………………...16

8.0 Public Outreach

FIGURES

Figure 1-1 Jonesport Housing Project Site Map – 353 Mill River Rd Site

Figure 1-2 Jonesport Housing Project Site Map – 363 Marshville Rd Site

TABLE

Table 4-1 Summary Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Three Alternatives ……..10 - 11

APPENDICES

Appendix A U.S. Coast Guard Approved Planning Proposal (2016)

Appendix B U.S. Coast Guard, Categorical Exclusion, Jonesport Housing Acquisition – engineering and Real Property Support Services, November 2016

Appendix C Natural Resources Evaluation for the 353 Mill River Location

Appendix D Natural Resources Evaluation for the 363 Marshville Road Location

Appendix E Coastal Zone Consistency Consultation

Appendix F Cultural Resources Assessment for 353 Mill River Rd

Appendix G Cultural Resources Assessment for 363 Marshville Rd

Appendix H Public Outreach Letters Sent and Feedback

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1.1 Introduction

In 2012, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) identified a need to recapitalize existing USCG personnel family housing for service members and their families assigned to USCG Station Jonesport, Maine.

Following the identification of this need, the USCG began its planning process that culminated in the development of an approved Planning Proposal that was signed in March 2016. This Planning Proposal is provided by Appendix (A). This document provides critical information in this project’s initial consideration, planning, and environmental concerns/issues.

Sixteen family housing units and the appropriate supporting infrastructure (roads, sidewalks, maintenance structures, common areas, utilities, etc) are required to adequately house and support USCG personnel and their families. Houses will be comprised of a mix of both 3 and 4 bedroom houses. Each unit will have an attached garage.

The USCG had considered both the rehabilitation of existing government housing and the purchase of 16 existing houses in the area as a means to resolve the current housing inadequacies. Both of the options, however, were eliminated as viable alternatives. The existing Station housing is located in an undesirable location, does not meet basic USCG housing standards, and is experiencing domestic wastewater discharge issues that are not resolvable. Real Estate surveys indicated that there are not enough single family houses on local real estate market that met minimum housing standards for USCG family housing. It is worth pointing out that USCG Station Jonesport is a remote location, and obtaining existing housing on the commercial market is a difficult challenge at best.

In order to meet the USCG housing requirements, it was determined that the USCG would need to acquire property and build its own housing. Appendix (B) provides a copy of the NEPA CATEX that was developed prior to beginning this property acquisition process.

Between December 2016 and July 2017 and after eliminating several properties initially under consideration, two properties were evaluated for suitability. A strong emphasis was placed on environmental impacts in this decision. Wetlands, endangered species, the potential for the presence of historical properties, etc. were all evaluated in this decision making process. For each of these two properties, study work included:

(1) Individual site evaluations to determine suitability of the properties for subsurface wastewater treatment including the excavation of test holes for percolation testing

(2) A groundwater supply study for each site to determine whether the hydrogeology would accommodate the potable water needs of a residential development. This study involved the drilling of at least several test wells

(3) Natural and cultural resources studies including wetlands delineation, critical habitat assessment, coastal zone applicability, and a study of cultural and historic resources

(4) The collection and analysis of surface soil samples to identify the presence of potential contaminants

(5) A boundary and topographic survey of each site

In the end, it was determined that both properties should be purchased. This decision was primarily based on a commitment to minimize wetlands impacts and to ensure adequate residential wastewater treatment could be provided. In purchasing both properties the density and environmental impacts of the housing could be reduced.

SUMMARIES OF THE TWO PROPERTIES PURCHASED

353 Mill River Road Property (Harrington, Maine)

The approximately 28 acre site is located at 353 Mill River Road in Harrington, Maine. The site contains a residence and outbuildings in the northeastern corner of the property. The remainder of the property is mostly field with areas of shrubby vegetation where the field is growing in and along the field edges. A tidal stream and associated emergent coastal wetland is located along the western boundary, and Cole Creek (freshwater) is outside of but near the eastern boundary of the site. The site is dominated by a northwest-southeast oriented topographic ridge with several erosion gullies that flow towards the eastern and western water features. The tidal stream turns southeastward beyond the southern property boundary and a few of the erosion gullies on the site flow to the south, towards this feature. Site slopes range from about 2 to 12 percent with locally steeper slopes in the gully side slopes. Cole Creek and the tidal stream join south of the site and flow south into the Mill River which flows into Flat Bay in the Atlantic Ocean, approximately 1.5 miles south of the site.

Appendix (C) provides the Natural Resources Evaluation for the 353 Mill River Location Figure (1-1) provides an Aerial Photo Site Plan of the property.

363 Marshville Road Property (Harrington, Maine)

The approximately 34 acre site is located at 363 Marshfield Road in Harrington, Maine. The site contains a residence and outbuildings in the eastern portion of the property. The remainder of the property is mostly forested with a small lawn area near the buildings. A tidal river (Harrington River) is outside of the northwestern and western site boundaries, but it’s associated coastal (intertidal estuarine) wetlands are on the northwestern and western portions of the site. The site generally slopes down to the west and northwest towards the river. Several erosion gullies flow from the northern and western portions of the property to the river. Site slopes range from about 5 to 20 percent with locally steeper slopes in the gully side slopes.

Some of the erosion gullies contain freshwater streams. The Harrington River flows south into the Pleasant Bay in the Atlantic Ocean, approximately 6 miles south of the site.

Appendix (D) provides the Natural Resources Evaluation for the 363 Marshville Road Figure (1-2) provides an Aerial Photo Site Plan of the property.

Because final design plans have not yet been developed and uncertainty remains as to the final configuration of the proposed housing developments, the USCG presumes for the purpose of this environmental assessment (EA) that during both the design and construction phases of this project:

Infrastructure will be configured to minimize impacts to wetlands.

Project Best Management Practices (BMPs) for storm water, waste water, and low impact development will ensure that any and all State and federal permitting/regulations requirements can be met.

1.3 OTHER PROJECT INFORMATION

Document Type

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) - Environmental Assessment

Lead Agency

U.S. Coast Guard

Further Information Point of Contact

U.S. Coast Guard, Facilities Design and Construction Center Attn: Richard Hylton 5505 Robin Hood Road, Suite K Norfolk, VA 23513 Phone (757) 852 - 3404 Fax (757) 852 – 3495 Email rick.d.hylton@uscg.mil

Next Project Step

The USCG Facilities Design and Construction Center Norfolk, Virginia, has been tasked with developing a Request for Proposal (RFP) to provide sixteen family Housing Units on two properties recently acquired in the vicinity of USCG Station Jonesport. A conceptual design will be developed, and then a contractor will be awarded a contract to design and build these structures.

To the maximum extent practicable, all local zoning requirements shall be met. State permits for storm water and waste water (and any other required permits) will be obtained during the design phase of the project.

2.0 PROJECT NEED

According to the 2012 USCG National Housing Assessment Briefing of Findings and Recommendations study, the nine (9) modular buildings currently being used as family housing units for USCG STA Jonesport, Maine, are in poor condition and have multiple design flaws which make renovation impractical. Problems include inadequate room size and floor plan layout, lack of insulation, wall materials containing asbestos, leaky basements, Life Safety Code issues, and outdated finishes and amenities. Modular housing typically has a useful service life of approximately twenty five (25) years and the existing units, constructed in 1969, are approaching twice that age.

The 2013 CHA completed for all of coastal Maine concluded that the Jonesport area lacks sufficient available, affordable and adequate housing on the economy. In fact, a recent local housing market survey in December of 2013 confirmed no apartment style rental housing is available within a one hour round trip commute to USCG STA Jonesport. This is reaffirmed by the February 2014 HMSA.

As a result, this project addresses the need for family housing that meets Coast Guard housing standards.

This project will construct twelve (12) three bedroom units and three (3) four bedroom units on newly acquired site to be selected based on suitable building conditions and a preferred location. The location should take into consideration a balance between a commutable distance to USCG STA Jonesport and family needs which require easy access to a main thoroughfare, in this case, US- Highway 1, to ensure proximity to medical care, schools, and support services for dependents.

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

Four alternatives for meeting the requirements to house USCG personnel and families at USCG Station Jonesport, Maine are considered:

Alternative 1: No Action or “Status Quo” Alternative.

Alternative 2: Lease Housing or Buy Existing Houses

*Alternative 3: Build New Housing on property purchased by the USCG, and meet local zoning requirements to the maximum extent practicable ( * Preferred Option).

Alternative 4: Rebuild Housing in Current Housing Location

For each alternative there are both positive and negative environmental aspects that are considered. A brief description for each alternative follows:

Alternative 1: No Action or “Status Quo”

Under the status quo alternative, USCG Station Jonesport would continue to use the existing Station housing. The housing would continue to not meet the USCG’s standard housing requirements; the sewage treatment facilities would continue to not be fully functional. USCG personnel would continue to live in inadequate housing that does not meet standards and is not located in an optimal location for access to shopping, schools, and town amenities. Maintenance and repair expenses would reoccur and grow in order to keep the housing habitable.

Positive Aspects of Alternative 1

Minimal immediate recapitalization costs would be incurred.

The temporary operational and environmental disturbances associated with the demolition and construction of new houses would not occur.

Negative Aspects of Alternative 1

Does not fully satisfy all mission requirements.

Inadequate housing provided for Station Jonesport personnel Future maintenance and repairs would be required more frequently, increasing long-term maintenance costs and resulting in more frequent operational and environmental disturbance from these maintenance activities.

Continued problems with waste water disposal and possibly drinking water issues.

Alternative 2: Lease Housing or Buy Existing Houses

Identify existing local housing to be either leased and/or purchased for use by USCG Station personnel. Based on a 2013 study of the local housing market, there are a very limited number of homes available to rent. Available apartments are typically more than an hour commute being 90 miles from STA Jonesport. The number of available homes for sale consists of either large tourist summer homes or small local dwellings and do not meet Coast Guard standards. This alternative will not be further evaluated.

Positive Aspects of Alternative 2

Minimal immediate recapitalization costs would be incurred.

The temporary operational and environmental disturbances associated with the demolition and construction of new houses would not occur.

Negative Aspects of Alternative 2

Not feasible because there are not enough available houses on the market (for sale or rent) that would meet USCG housing standards and within a commuting range.

Alternative 3: Build Sixteen New Housing Units in the Town of Harrington, Maine (Preferred Alternative)

In this scenario, sixteen new housing units would be built on two recently acquired Town of Harrington properties, along with roads, sidewalks, utilities, and other supporting infrastructure.

Positive Aspects of Alternative 3

Fully satisfies current and future mission requirements.

Environmental BMPs can be incorporated and long term energy conservation strategies can be designed into the housing units USCG housing standards can be met, and USCG personnel will experience a higher quality of life, with better access to shopping, schools, and medical facilities.

Future maintenance and repair activities (with their associated operational and environmental disturbance) are put off for a greater amount of time than Alternative #1.

Negative Aspects of Alternative 3

Higher capital costs than Alternative 1.

Temporary and typical environmental stresses associated with build new houses and infrastructure

Alternative 4: Rebuild Housing in Current Housing Location

In this scenario, the existing housing would be rebuilt in its current location, and the sewer system would be repaired and upgraded. The existing property footprint is too small to accommodate additional required housing. The property is also adjacent to wetlands, which precludes the construction of new homes without obtaining required variances which would ultimately reduce the number of new homes that could be constructed at this site. This alternative has been determined non-viable. This alternative will not be further evaluated.

Positive Aspects of Alternative 4

Lower immediate recapitalization costs then Alternative 3.

Redevelopment versus New Construction. Less environmental impact than Alternative 3.

Negative Aspects of Alternative 4

There would still be temporary environmental stresses associated with redevelopment. These stresses would be less than Alternative 3.

Not feasible because there is not enough land present to support the housing requirements.

Not ideal solution for quality of life issues for USCG personnel assigned to Station Jonesport.

4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

The affected environments considered in this analysis are the two recently acquired properties in the Town of Harrington. These two properties are:

353 Mill River Road, Harrington, ME 363 Marshville Road, Harrington, ME

This section describes the current condition of resources that would potentially be affected by the proposed action and alternatives and summarizes the potential effects on those resources. Note - Alternatives 2 and 4 have been eliminated from consideration, because they were determined to be not feasible. A comparison of the potential impacts from alternatives 1 and 3 (the preferred alternative) is provided in Table (3-1).

4.1 Human Environment

The actions evaluated within this environmental assessment are not expected to have a significant or long-term effect on the human environment. Minor temporary effects on transportation and emergency services may occur during construction activities associated with Alternative 3 (the preferred alternative). As Alternative 1 is the “no action” alternative, this option in general terms has no significant impact on the human environmental. The potential effects on the human environment are discussed in greater detail below. The focus is on Alternative 3.

Land Use: Alternative 1 (no action alternative) would have no land use changes. Alternative 3 would take two residential sites with large tracts of land (28 acres and 34 acres) and convert each site into small subdivision style sites with large remaining tracts of green space. A total of 16 residential units would be added. This concentration of houses (albeit a small number of housing units) would be different than the typical rural area that currently exists with neighboring houses typically having large tracts of land for each house. The USCG is working with the Town of Harrington to meet zoning and land use requirements in this development to the maximum extent practicable.

The USCG is also working with Maine’s coastal zone management program, and has submitted a federal consistency package to Maine’s Coastal Zone office. Maine has responded that while they don’t see any major obstacles with concurrence, they will need additional information to include design documents that will not be available until after the award of a design-build contract.

Appendix (E) provides the initial and ongoing Coastal Zone Consistency consultation work that will continue through the design phase of this project. The USCG anticipates that Maine will concur with its “no effect” determination once it reviews the actual design documents, and is satisfied that all appropriate state permits are in place.

Growth, Community Impacts, Utility Services: Alternative 1 would have no impact. Alternative 3 will require upgrade of the utility services available the two properties but will have negligible impact on the utilities providers’ capacity or ability to provide those services. As noted above, Alternative 3 will add 16 families to the Town of Harrington, which is a rural community.

Parks and Recreation: No changes to community recreational facilities are proposed as part of this project.

Emergency Services, Traffic and Transportation, Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities: Alternative 1 would have no impact. Construction activities associated with Alternative 3 will temporarily minimally increase local traffic; however, no significant or long term effects are anticipated.

Visual/Aesthetics: Alternative 1 would have no impact. Alternative 3 will provide two small subdivision style neighborhoods in an otherwise rural environmental. Although visually different, the USCG sites will have quality built homes and significant green space

Cultural/Paleontological Resources and Farmlands/Timberlands: Alternative 1 would have no impact. Alternative 3 is evaluated below.

Prior to purchase, initial Cultural Resource Evaluations were conducted on both properties. The evaluators conducted background research at the offices of the Maine Historic Preservation Commission (MHPC) in Augusta, the Washington County Registry of Deeds in Machias, and the Historical Society of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. In addition, staff at the MHPC shared information and opinions related to the nature of archaeological and architectural resources in the Doen East region of Maine that included Washington County. Finally a site visit and preliminary assessment was undertaken.

SUMMARIES OF THE CULTURAL RESOURCE EVALUATIONS FOR THE TWO

PROPERTIES PURCHASED

353 Mill River Road Property (Harrington, Maine)

All existing structures at Mill River Rd were constructed after the year 2000, and none have unique architectural features. There was some discussion that an old family home may have previously been located on this site, however, no evidence was ever revealed that a previous house or structure was located on this property. Additionally, it was determined that the topsoil had been removed in previous years from most of this property. This would have most likely removed any remaining cultural/historical artifacts. Based on this information and the report generated by the cultural evaluation, the Maine SHPO office provided their concurrence that the project would not impact historical resources at this location.

Appendix (F) provides the Cultural Resource Evaluation Report for the 353 Mill River location, the THPO consultation letters sent to four Maine Federally recognized Indian Nations, and the correspondence between the USCG and the Maine SHPO.

363 Marshville Road Property (Harrington, Maine)

A circa-1835 dwelling remains standing on this property as well as an old barn and some more modern outbuildings. Based on the age of this structure, the cultural resource evaluation report recommended a Phase 1B Archeological Survey be conducted. The USCG has consulted initially with the Maine SHPO Office. Based on this information and the report generated by the cultural evaluation, the Maine SHPO office provided their opinion that the project would not impact historical resources at this location.

Appendix (G) provides the initial Cultural Resource Evaluation Report for the 363 Marshville Road location, the THPO consultation letters sent to four Maine Federally recognized Indian

Nations, and the initial correspondence between the USCG and the Maine SHPO.

4.2 Physical Environment

Alternative 1 would have no impact. The actions evaluated within this environmental assessment are not expected to have a significant or long-term effect on the physical environment. Typical short term impacts could occur during construction phase of Alternative 3 to include impacts to storm water quality, noise, and vibration effects are likely during construction.

Geology/Soils/Seismic/Topography, Hydrology and Floodplain: Alternative 1 would have no impact. Alternative 3 will require typical construction site preparation to include clearing, grading, utilities installation, roads, sidewalks, etc. This project will not occur in a floodplain, and no significant impacts to hydrology, geology, and topography are expected. Typical construction permits and environmental BMPs will minimize environmental impacts to these 2 sites.

Water Quality and Storm Water Runoff: Alternative 1 would have no impact. Alternative 3 will require ground disturbing activities over the duration of the construction project. Federal and state storm water standards and regulations will require design and construction to minimize storm water disturbances. Alternative 3 would create minimal short term water quality and storm water issues associated with construction, however, these activities would be permitted and minimized to the greatest extent practical

Hazardous Waste/Materials: Alternative 1 would have no impact. Alternative 3 would have a temporary minimal impact during the construction phase. Projects of this type typically do not generate hazardous waste. Proper management of fuels and oils used in heavy equipment would require proper management.

Air Quality: There are no anticipated air quality issues with either Alternative 1 or 3. Other than construction, no new activities that might generate an air quality impact are contemplated.

Construction activities will be of short duration and of no regional significance. All activities will conform to the requirements of the Clean Air Act.

Noise and Vibration: Alternative 1 would have no impact. There are no anticipated long-term noise or vibration issues associated with Alternative 3, which would produce typical construction noise.

Energy Consumption: Alternative 1 would have no impact. New housing associated with alternative 3 will be energy efficient, so this alternative should provide a net decrease in energy consumption associated with USCG housing.

4.3 Biological Environment

Alternative 1 would have no impact. Primary concerns to be address for Alternative 3 are potential impacts to wetlands and potential impacts to endangered species or their habitat. The actions evaluated within this environmental assessment are not expected to have a significant or long-term effect on the biological environment. The potential effects on the biological environment are discussed in greater detail below.

Wetlands and Other Waters: Alternative 1 would have no impact. Alternative 3 will require design and construction activities to “work around” extensive wetlands on both sites. The size of the two parcels makes it possible to site houses with minimum disturbances to wetlands. Appendices

(C) & (D) provide a thorough discussion of wetlands delineated on both parcels (353 Mill River Rd and 363 Marshville Rd). Appropriate agencies in Maine will be consulted and permits obtained prior to initiation of any construction activities should there be any impact to wetlands.

Natural Communities, Plant & Animal Species, Threatened & Endangered Species: Alternative 1 would have no impact. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service online Information, Planning, and Conservation (IPAC) System list two threatened species (Northern Long-eared Bat, Atlantic Salmon). Neither of these species should be impacted by this project. Should long eared bats be discovered or their habitat is identified, proper management and time of year restrictions could minimize disturbances and impacts. Appendices (C) & (D) provide a thorough discussion of threatened & endangered species for both parcels (353 Mill River Rd and 363 Marshville Rd). The USCG would utilize appropriate best management practices and consult with the following agencies to ensure disturbances are minimized:

Maine Division of Fish, Game, and Wildlife U.S. Fish and Wildlife National Marine Fisheries Service

Invasive Species: Neither Alternative (1) or (3) is expected to create habitat for or increase the facility’s susceptibility to invasive plant or animal species.

4.4 Cumulative Impacts

Because there are no new USCG STA Jonesport personnel, this project will have no significant cumulative impacts on the surrounding community. The same number of personnel requiring local housing remains the same. Whether the existing government housing combined with local housing continues or the new housing is constructed, there is only a negligible difference. The Town of Harrington will have additional houses and additional road usage, but in return the USCG will not utilize the existing inadequate housing and the local housing market.

By purchasing two large tracts of land (30 acres each) the USCG is able to break up the concentration of housing on a single smaller track of land.

Table 4-1: Comparison of Alternatives

Alternative #1 Status Quo

Alternative #3 Construct 2 New Small Housing Developments in

Harrington, ME (Selected Alternative)

Human Environment

Land Use No Effect Negligible Growth

Community Impacts Utility Services

No Effect Negligible

Parks and Recreation No Effect No Effect

Emergency Services Traffic

Transportation Pedestrian Facilities

Bicycle Facilities

No Effect Negligible & Short Term

Visual Aesthetics No Effect Minor Long Term Improvement Cultural Resources

Paleontological Resources Farmlands

Timberlands

No Effect Negligible

Environmental Justice No Effect No Effect

Physical Environment

Geology Soils

Seismic Topography Hydrology Floodplain

No Effect No Effect

Water Quality Storm Water

No Effect Minimal Short Term Effects/Potential for Long Term

Improvement or Negligible

Hazardous Waste Hazardous Materials

No Effect No Effect

Air Quality No Effect Negligible & Short Term

Noise Vibration

No Effect Negligible & Short Term

Energy Consumption No Effect Negligible & Short Term

Biological Environment

Wetlands Other Waters

No Effect Negligible & Short Term

Natural Communities Plant & Animal Species Threatened/Endangered

Species

No Effect Negligible & Short Term

Invasive Species No Effect No Effect

5.0 SUMMARY OF COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

Anadromous Fish Conservation Act: Anadromous fish will not be affected by this project;

coordination with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service.

Coast Zone Management Act: This project is consistent with the Maine - Coastal Zone Management Program; coordination is ongoing and will be completed during the design phase. See Appendix (E)

Coastal Barrier Resources Act and Coastal Barrier Improvement Act: This project does not affect coastal barrier resources.

Clean Air Act: This project as reviewed will not create or increase pollutant discharges or require permitting under the Clean Air Act. Any additional air pollutants will be negligible and only temporarily related to construction activities. Housing will be designed to be energy efficient.

Clean Water Act: This project will not create or increase pollutant discharges or require permitting under the Clean Water Act. Storm water BMPs will be incorporated into the project to meet federal and state requirements. As required, state permits will be obtained and complied with for both temporary storm water controls related to ground disturbance and permanent storm water BMPs will be incorporated as required.

Endangered Species Act (ESA): Disturbance to endangered or threatened species or their habitat is not expected. This project will be coordinated with appropriate agencies to ensure compliance with the ESA, including U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and Maine Division of Fish, Game, and Wildlife are ongoing. See Appendices (C) & (D) for consultations and research on applicable endangered species and critical habitat.

Estuary Protection Act: No designated estuary will be affected by this project.

Farmland Protection Policy Act: No prime or unique farmland will be impacted by this project.

Federal Water Project Recreation Act: This act does not apply to this project.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act: This project is being coordinated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serve. See Appendices (C) & (D) for consultations and research on applicable endangered species and critical habitat.

Fishery Conservation and Management Act: Fisheries will not be impacted. Proper setbacks from navigable waters and wetland features will be maintained by thoughtful design and construction.

Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act: Fisheries will not be impacted.

Proper setbacks from navigable waters and wetland features will be maintained by thoughtful design and construction.

Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act: This act does not apply to this project.

Marine Mammal Protection Act: This act does not apply to this project.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Migratory Bird Conservation Act: This project will not affect migratory birds.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): This environmental assessment completes the environmental review process and satisfies the requirements under NEPA.

National Historic Preservation Act/Archeological and Historic Preservation Act: Coordination and consultation with the Maine SHPO office has been completed. The Maine SHPO office concurs that that project will have no impact on historical properties. See Appendices (F) & (G).

Rivers and Harbors Act: This is not applicable to this project.

Submerged Lands Act: This is not applicable to this project.

Wild and Scenic River Act: No designated river reaches will be impacted by this project.

6.0 PERMITS, APPROVALS, AND CONSULTATIONS

Alternative 1 would involve no permits, approvals, or consultations. Alternative 3 will require permitting, plan submittal, and/or consultation with local, state, and/or federal agencies. Activities that may require permits, approvals, or consultations include:

Land Disturbance (Sedimentation and Erosion Control) Potable Water Distribution System Construction - Individual wells will be placed for each residence. Local and state permitting is anticipated.

Wastewater System Construction – Individual septic tank and drainage fields will be constructed for each residence. Local and state permitting is anticipated.

Storm Water Management System Construction – Depending on the amount of impervious cover, storm water management permitting may be required and coordinated with the Maine DEP Demolition of Structures/Disposal of Debris

Contact/consultation with the following agencies/persons has been initiated:

Town of Harrington (Zoning) Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation & Forestry (Coastal Program) Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife Maine State Historic Preservation Office Tribal Historical Preservation Officer - Aroostook Band of Micmacs Tribal Historical Preservation Officer - Penobscot Indian Nation Tribal Historical Preservation Officer - Passamaquoddy Tribe of Indians Tribal Historical Preservation Officer - Houlton Band of Malisect Indians Maine Department of Environmental Protection U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Maine Coastal Zone Office

Appendix (H) - Following a 30 day public comment period, Appendix (H) will be used to provide copies of feedback received and U.S. Coast Guard responses to these comments.

7.0 PREPARER

Richard D. Hylton Jr., P.E.

Environmental Engineer U.S. Coast Guard Facilities Design and Construction Center 5505 Robin Hood Rd, Suite K Norfolk, VA, 23513

(757) 852-3404

8.0 PUBLIC OUTREACH

This project is proposed to take place in the Town of Harrington, ME. There are two parcels of land that are both rural in nature. In order to reach out to this small community and the surround area, the Environmental Assessment was sent in November 2017 to the following entities to solicit public comment and feedback:

1. Town of Harrington – Town Manager (posted on their town website – www.harringtonmaine.com)

2. Town of Harrington – Public Library

Legal notices were also posted to the following local newspapers in order to advertise the availability of the Draft EA document for public review and to solicit public comments:

1. Bangor daily – Legal Notice ran from November 30, 2017 thru December 7, 2017

2. County Wide News – Legal Notice ran November 21, 2017 and December 5, 2017

Copies of the notices are provided in Appendix (H).

8.1 Feedback

The USCG received 1 public comment via email from a Harrington citizen whose property abuts one of the project properties. This email is included in Appendix (H). The concerns cited were possible noise pollution, the impact of exterior lighting that would create light pollution, and a question of whether a public meeting would be held locally

The USCG responded to the citizen via email. Our response is included in Appendix (H). The USCG will minimize light pollution to the maximum extent practical by minimizing exterior lighting and utilizing exterior down-lighting, noise disturbances will be addressed within the existing Coast Guard Housing program on a case-by-case basis, and once we have more developed project designs, the USCG will communicate additional project information to the local community.

FIGURES

353 Mill River Rd

Figure 1-1

RDHylton Polygon

363 Marshville Rd

Figure 1-2

Harrington River

RDHylton Polygon

Appendix A

U.S. Coast Guard

Planning Proposal, Jonesport Housing Acquisition

August 2017

Appendix B

Categorical Exclusion, Jonesport Housing Acquisition

Department of Homeland Security

Environmental Analysis Checklist

REV.2016 PROJECT EA CHECKLIST Page 1

Project Title: Jonesport Housing Acquisition - Engineering and Real Property Support Services Project No: 4490913 Sector/Station: SEC Northern New England AOR

This checklist must be completed for all projects related to maintenance and repair, including major and minor construction. The purpose of the checklist is to determine the proper level of NEPA analysis needed to identify potential problems or concerns.

General Instructions for completing this checklist:

Each question requires a determination by the Project Engineer in consultation as needed with an Environmental Reviewer to assess the likelihood of an environmental consequence that may result from the proposed action.

If the question is not applicable to the proposed action, mark "N/A". If the question may be applicable but more information is needed, mark TBD [To Be Determined] and conduct required inquiries and consultation as applicable in developing the environmental documentation. If there are no concerns or impacts then answer "NO".

REV.2016 PROJECT EA CHECKLIST Page 2

Sector/Station: SEC Northern New England AOR

Provide a description of the project with sufficient detail so that significant issues can be identified and reasonably evaluated. (Include building number/description, special procedures or methods that will be used to accomplish the project to the extent known).

Project Description:

The USCG has identified a need to recapitalize USCG personnel family housing for service members reporting to Station Jonesport, Maine. The project requires the acquisition of land that can be developed to support construction of residential housing. Prior to purchasing property, the USCG will conduct environmental testing at up to 3 sites to confirm that the land is viable for design and construction of residential infrastructure. The testing work will include:

(1) Individual site evaluations to determine suitability of the properties for subsurface wastewater treatment including the excavation of test holes for percolation testing

(2) A groundwater supply study for each site to determine whether the hydrogeology will accommodate the potable water needs of a residential development. This study will involve the drilling of at least several test wells

(3) A natural and cultural resources study including wetlands delineation, critical habitat assessment, coastal zone applicability, and a study of cultural and historic resources

(4) The collection and analysis of surface soil samples to identify the presence of potential contaminants

(5) An optional boundary and topographic survey of each site

In addition to the testing described above, the project requires real property support services to include a title insurance binder and home inspection of each site.

Upon completion of the tasks described above, and assuming the testing concludes that at least one of the sites can be developed to support residential structures, the USCG will purchase the property that can best support the proposed use.

REV.2016 PROJECT EA CHECKLIST Page 3

Sector/Station: SEC Northern New England AOR

1. Effects of Land Use Patterns This entire section does not apply

Provide comments to explain your response and provide rationale as appropriate.

a. Is the proposed use of the project site inconsistent with land use in the area?

No The selected properties will be located in areas with existing residential land use.

b. Does the project conflict with local zoning ordinances?

No The property acquisition and site testing is not affected by local zoning ordinances. Prior to development of the site, local zoning requirements will be evaluated, i.e. single family, multi family resdiences.

c. Has any controversy over land use arisen with other agencies or the public?

No Public outreach is anticipated to occur concurrently with the proposed testing of the properties and prior to property acquisition.

d. Will the project result in the relocation of private residences or businesses?

No

e. Will the project result in public access through the area?

No

f. Is the proposed architecture inconsistent with the surrounding architecture or landscape?

N/A This property acquisition and site testing will not involve construction of the buildings. Compatibility with local architecture will be evaluated during the site development process.

g. Does the project involve construction in the base flood plain (i.e. 100 year flood).

Executive Order 11988

No

2. Effects of the Social Environment section does not apply

Provide comments to explain your

a. Will the project involve a significant increase in the population of the community?

No The property acquisition and site testing will not increase the population of the community.

Impacts of population related to the influx of CG members into the community will be evaluated during the site development process.

b. Will the population increase involve an increase in the population density of the area?

REV.2016 PROJECT EA CHECKLIST Page 4

Sector/Station: SEC Northern New England AOR

c. Will the project require the construction of government housing either now or at a later date?

Yes

d. Are there sufficient support facilities for personnel including schools, hospitals, shopping facilities and recreation facilities?

TBD

e. Will the influx of Coast Guard personnel significantly tax these support facilities?

TBD

f. Will the project involve an increased load on utilities, particularly municipal water supplies and sewage disposal facilities?

No Public water and sewer are not available in the affected project area.

g. Will the project have a significant effect on the economic activities of the area?

No

h. Will the project impact the view scape from adjacent properties?

No

3. Effects on Transportation This entire section does not apply

Provide comments to explain your response and provide rationale as appropriate.

a. Will the project involve significant increased vehicle traffic on surrounding streets and highways either during construction or operation?

No Traffic impacts associated with the site testing are not anticipated to be significant.

b. Will the project involve increased waterway traffic either during construction or operation?

N/A

c. Will the project require rerouting of roads during construction?

No

d. Will the project require rerouting of traffic during construction?

No

e. Is the project located near any existing bottleneck in vehicle or vessel traffic such as a bridge, intersection, bend in the waterway, restricted channel, etc.?

No

f. Is the project likely to create any such obstruction either during construction or operation?

4. Effects on Public Safety section does not apply

Provide comments to explain your response and provide rationale as appropriate.

a. Will the project require the storage of explosives?

No

b. Will the project require the storage of large amounts of fuel?

REV.2016 PROJECT EA CHECKLIST Page 5

Sector/Station: SEC Northern New England AOR

c. Will the project include the construction of radio antennas or high voltage radar or microwave structures?

No

d. Will the project include landing facilities for Coast Guard aircraft?

No

e. Will the public have access to hazardous areas?

No

f. Will the project require the storage, treatment, handling or disposal of hazardous wastes?

No The site testing work will involve the sampling of soils at the properties for contaminants of concern. It is not anticipated that properties will be found to contain hazardous waste at levels that would require significant site remediation or large amounts of hazardous waste will be generated during site studies.

g. Will the project involve disposal of PCB electrical components?

No Identified properties are undeveloped large land parcels.

h. Will the project involve the disturbance of any surfaces accessible to human contact containing lead-based paint?

Yes The project will involve the testing of surface soils for lead based paint.

Proper PPE is required.

i. Will the project occur in a structure that contains water piping with lead-based joints?

No

j. Will the project occur in a building which is child-occupied (i.e. child-care center, residential housing, etc)?

No

5. Effects on Noise Levels This entire section does not apply

Provide comments to explain your

a. Will construction of a facility significantly increase the ambient noise levels in the area?

No

b. Will operation of the facility increase the ambient noise level of the area [includes operation of machinery, vehicles, vessels, aircraft, loudspeaker systems, alarms, etc.]?

No

c. Will noise levels above the ambient noise levels, from operation at the facility, generally occur past normal working hours[7 A.M. to 6 P.M.] ?

No

d. Will construction activities at the site continue past normal working hours?

No

e. Will operations at the facility include the use of equipment with unusual noise characteristics?

N/A

REV.2016 PROJECT EA CHECKLIST Page 6

6. Effects on Air Quality section does not apply

Provide comments to explain your response and provide rationale as appropriate.

a. Will construction activities adversely affect the ambient air quality due to dust, emission from construction vehicles, open burning, etc.? [Contact state and local Air Quality Agency for determination.]

No

b. Will operation of vehicles, vessels, aircraft or other machinery at the completed facility adversely affect the ambient air quality?

[Contact state and local Air Quality Agency for determination.]

No

c. Will dredging activities result in the release of noxious odors?

N/A

d. Will industrial activities at the facility result in toxic or unusual air emissions?

N/A

e. Will open burning be carried out at the completed facility?

No

f. Will maintenance and repair service on air-conditioning and refrigeration equipment be required? [Only certified contractors or certified in-house personnel having required technician certifications ].

N/A

g. Will the constructed facility conform to the State Air Quality Implementation Plan [SIP]?

N/A

h. If the project involves demolition or renovation of an existing building, have the building components been tested for asbestos containing materials [ACM]? [Building materials containing asbestos are still manufactured and may be present in any building regardless of age.]

N/A This component of the project will not involve demolition of existing structures.

i. If the project involves installation of a generator, have all federal and state requirements for certification, notification, and permitting been met?

N/A

7. Effects on Water Resources This entire section does not apply

Provide comments to explain your response and provide rationale as appropriate.

a. Will the project require any dredging below the MHW line, ordinary high water line, or near or in any wetlands, waterways, or other contiguous bodies of water?

REV.2016 PROJECT EA CHECKLIST Page 7

Sector/Station: SEC Northern New England AOR

b. Will the dredging include new depths or lateral extents? [If “yes”, an Environmental Assessment may be required.]

N/A

c. Will there be any waterway construction [i.e.

piers, docks, dolphins, jetties, ramps, etc.]?

[COE 404b Permit may be required.]

No

d. Will any fill be placed below MHW?

[COE 404b Permit may be required.]

No

e. Will there be any modification of the streambed or banks of a waterway?

No

f. Will there be any diversion of flow in the waterway?

N/A

g. Will construction in adjacent waterways result in alteration of the sedimentation characteristic of the waterway?

N/A

h. Will waterfront construction result in an increase in water turbidity?

N/A

i. Will operation of vessels at the facility result in bank erosion due to vessel wake?

N/A

j. Will a Corps of Engineers "404" permit be required? [Contact local COE office a determination.]

N/A

k. Will an Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] and state permit be required to discharge sewage or waste waters into adjacent waterways either during construction or when the project is completed? [Contact EPA and State Water Quality Offices for determination.]

N/A

l. Will the construction activity disturb more than one acre? [A NPDES stormwater permit is required if more than one acre of land is disturbed for construction]

N/A

m. Have Low Impact Development (LID) strategies been incorporated into the project design to maintain or restore natural hydrologic and hydraulic functions of the site to the extent technically feasible where 5,000 ft2 are disturbed? [EISA 2007 Section 438 Storm water Runoff]

N/A

n. Is there potential for construction related debris, silt or other materials to enter adjacent waterways?

Yes Various components of the site testing work will involve excavation.

The Contractor will be required to implement erosion and sedimentation controls to prevent

REV.2016 PROJECT EA CHECKLIST Page 8 impacts to surface waters.

o. Will the project require construction of a well or water intake structure in a natural waterway? [Contact local water and health authorities for possible requirements and permits.]

No

p. Will the construction of a well or intake structure significantly deplete available water resources?

N/A

q. Is there a designated sole source aquifer within the project site?

No While a designated sole source aquifer is unlikely at the project sites, the groundwater is sensitive given that municpal water is not available.

r. Will dockside sewage and bilge water collection systems require local and state permits?

N/A

s. Will the temperature of the surrounding water be raised by any discharges resulting from the construction or operation of the project?

N/A

t. Is there a significant possibility of accidental spills of oils, hazardous or toxic materials?

No

u. Is there any obvious contamination [stained soil, sheen on water, stressed vegetation, etc.] currently at the project site?

No

v. Will any below or above ground fuel storage tanks be removed, replaced or installed? How many?

No

w. Is there a current State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit or EPA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for an existing discharge at the site?

No

x. If the project involves repairs to a septic system, sewage collection system and/or sewage lift station, are provisions in place to ensure…