Sole Source Aquifers
General requirements
|
Legislation
|
Regulation
|
The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 protects drinking water systems which are the sole or principal drinking water source for an area and which, if contaminated, would create a significant hazard to public health.
|
Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 201, 300f et seq., and 21 U.S.C. 349)
|
40 CFR Part 149
|
1. Does the project consist solely of acquisition, leasing, or rehabilitation of an existing building(s)?
Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section.
Screen Summary
Compliance Determination
PROJECT IS IN COMPLIANCE. Based on the project description, the project consists of activities that are unlikely to have an adverse impact on groundwater resources. The project is in compliance with Sole Source Aquifer requirements. SOLE SOURCE AQUIFER LOCATIONS: National Geographic Information Systems (GIS) layer of SSAs. Information on sole source aquifers (SSAs) is widely used in assessments under the National Environmental Policy Act and at the state and local level. A national layer, including all available SSA coverages, is available for use in GIS. This layer includes a total of 89 GIS polygons for SSAs. In addition to single SSA designated area polygons, some EPA regional offices have delineated GIS layers for: (A) Stream-flow zones; (B) Aquifer recharge areas; and (C) Other features at the land surface important for SSA designations. The SSA geo-spatial data set is available for use by government agencies, private organizations, and the public. The Data.gov website has the way to download the data for Sole Source Aquifers.
|
Supporting documentation
Are formal compliance steps or mitigation required?
Wetlands Protection
General requirements
|
Legislation
|
Regulation
|
Executive Order 11990 discourages direct or indirect support of new construction impacting wetlands wherever there is a practicable alternative. The Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wetlands Inventory can be used as a primary screening tool, but observed or known wetlands not indicated on NWI maps must also be processed Off-site impacts that result in draining, impounding, or destroying wetlands must also be processed.
|
Executive Order 11990
|
24 CFR 55.20 can be used for general guidance regarding the 8 Step Process.
|
1. Does this project involve new construction as defined in Executive Order 11990, expansion of a building’s footprint, or ground disturbance? The term "new construction" shall include draining, dredging, channelizing, filling, diking, impounding, and related activities and any structures or facilities begun or authorized after the effective date of the Order
Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section.
Screen Summary
Compliance Determination
PROJECT IS IN COMPLIANCE. Based on the project description this project includes NO activities that would require further evaluation under this section. The PROJECT IS IN COMPLIANCE with Executive Order 11990 and FEMA's Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) appears to show the subject as being in Community Panel Number 06065-C-1586-G, dated August 28, 2008. The Flood Map appears to show the subject site to be within a shaded Flood Zone X, an area of 0.2% annual chance flood; areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; and areas protected by levees from 1% annual chance flood. Therefore, the structure or insurable property IS NOT located in a FEMA-designated Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). While flood insurance may not be mandatory in this instance, HUD recommends that all insurable structures maintain flood insurance under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). The PROJECT IS IN COMPLIANCE with flood insurance, floodplain and wetlands protection requirements and regulations.
|
Supporting documentation
Are formal compliance steps or mitigation required?
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
General requirements
|
Legislation
|
Regulation
|
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act provides federal protection for certain free-flowing, wild, scenic and recreational rivers designated as components or potential components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (NWSRS) from the effects of construction or development.
|
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1271-1287), particularly section 7(b) and (c) (16 U.S.C. 1278(b) and (c))
|
36 CFR Part 297
|
1. Is your project within proximity of a NWSRS river?
|
No
|
|
Yes, the project is in proximity of a Designated Wild and Scenic River or Study Wild and Scenic River.
|
|
Yes, the project is in proximity of a Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI) River.
|
Screen Summary
Compliance Determination
PROJECT IS IN COMPLIANCE. California has approximately 189,454 miles of river, of which 1,999.6 miles are designated as wild & scenic--1% of the state's river miles. There are 3 designated California Wild and Scenic Rivers many miles West of the Subject: (1) Palm Canyon Creek, (2) Fuller Mill Creek and (3) Bautista Creek. Managing Agency: U.S. Forest Service, San Bernardino National Forest Designated Reach: March 30, 2009. From the source of Fuller Mill Creek in the San Jacinto Wilderness to its confluence with the North Fork San Jacinto River. Classification/Mileage: Scenic -- 2.6 miles; Recreational -- 0.9 miles; Total -- 3.5 miles. Managing Agency: U.S. Forest Service, San Bernardino National Forest Designated Reach: March 30, 2009. From the San Bernardino National Forest boundary in Section 36, Township 6 South, Range 2 East to the San Bernardino National Forest boundary in Section 2, Township 6 South, Range 1 East. Classification/Mileage: Recreational -- 9.8 miles; Total -- 9.8 miles. Managing Agency: U.S. Forest Service, San Bernardino National Forest Designated Reach: March 30, 2009. From the southern boundary of Section 6, Township 7 South, Range 5 East to the San Bernardino National Forest boundary in Section 1, Township 6 South, Range 4 East. Classification/Mileage: Wild -- 8.1 miles; Total -- 8.1 miles. This project is not within proximity of a NWSRS river. The project is in compliance with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT'S (BLM) CALIFORNIA WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS: The complete list of BLM California wild and scenic rivers is: (1) Amargosa; (2) Cottonwood Creek; (3) Eel; (4) Klamath; (5) Merced; (6) North Fork American; (7) Trinity; and (8) Tuolumne. The Bureau of Land Management in California manages eight (8) wild and scenic rivers, with 109 river-miles and 24,800- acres. These rivers provide rare and lush riparian areas in the desert, challenging whitewater rapids through deep canyons and rugged mountains in central California, and serene mountain valley streams excellent for fly-fishing in northern California. The diverse river habitats provide crucial nurseries for salmon and steelhead in Northern California and for threatened desert pupfish and the Amargosa Vole in Southern California. The Eel River, is the longest free flowing Wild and Scenic River in the continental 48 with 398-miles classified either as wild, scenic or recreational, in cooperation with state, tribal and other federal agencies. Whitewater streams provide a full range of river experiences with Class I, II, & lll rapids for fun day-use and with Class IV and V rapids for an extreme rafting and kayaking experience. Wild and Scenic Rivers are designated to preserve their free-flowing condition and to protect and enhance their outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish, wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values (Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968).
|
Supporting documentation
Are formal compliance steps or mitigation required?
Housing Requirements
General requirements
|
Legislation
|
Regulations
|
It is HUD policy that all properties that are being proposed for use in HUD programs be free of hazardous materials, contamination, toxic chemicals and gases, and radioactive substances, where a hazard could affect the health and safety of the occupants or conflict with the intended utilization of the property.
|
|
24 CFR 50.3(i)
24 CFR 35
|
Will Multifamily Accelerated Processing (MAP) be used?
Hazardous Substances
Requirements for evaluating site contamination vary by program. If applicable, for each of the following factors describe how compliance was met and upload any relevant documents such as reports, surveys, and letters. Refer to program guidance for the specific requirements.
Lead-based paint
Was a lead-based paint inspection or survey performed by the appropriate certified lead professional?
|
No, because the project was previously deemed to be lead free.
|
|
No, because the project does not involve any buildings constructed prior to 1978.
|
|
No, because program guidance does not require testing for this type of project
For example: HUD’s lead-based paint requirements at 24 CFR Part 35 do not apply to housing designated exclusively for the elderly or persons with disabilities, unless a child of less than 6 years of age resides or is expected to reside in such housing. In addition, the requirements do not apply to 0-bedroom dwelling units.
|
PROJECT IS IN COMPLIANCE. The project's construction in 2003 and 2004 indicates this project DOES NOT involve any buildings constructed prior to 1978, so Lead-based paint is highly unlikely to exist and be present due to the 2003 and 2004 construction.
|
Radon
Was radon testing performed following the appropriate and latest ANSI-AARST standard?
|
No, because program guidance does not require testing for this type of project.
Note that radon testing is encouraged for all HUD projects, even where it is not required. Explain why radon testing was not completed below.
|
Did testing identify one or more units with radon levels above the EPA action level for mitigation?
|
Yes
Refer to program guidance for remediation requirements. Describe the testing procedure and findings below and any necessary mitigation measures in the Mitigation textbox at the bottom of this screen. Upload all documentation below
|
|
No
Upload below all testing documents demonstrating that radon was not found above EPA action levels for mitigation.
|
PROJECT IS IN COMPLIANCE. The EPA Radon Zone Map indicates the subject is located within a radon gas Zone 2 area where average predicted radon levels vary between 2.0 and 4.0 pico curies per liter (pCi/L) and do not typically go above the 4.0 threshold level for major concern. Radon testing activities were completed between May 3 and May 5, 2017, with a total of 64 charcoal radon canisters deployed within 25% of the ground floor units and 10% of the units on each of the upper floors at the subject. According to the analytical data, radon gas was not detected above the EPA Action Limit of 4.0 pico curies per liter for radon in residential buildings. NO additional assessment activities appear warranted at this time. Details of the radon gas testing are outlined within a Radon Report which is provided under separate cover.
|
Asbestos
Was a comprehensive asbestos building survey performed pursuant to the relevant requirements of the latest ASTM standard?
|
No, because the project does not involve any buildings constructed prior to 1978.
Provide documentation of construction date(s) below.
|
|
No, because program guidance does not require testing for this type of project
Explain in textbox below.
|
Other
PROJECT IS IN COMPLIANCE DUE TO A LACK OF ADDITIONAL NUISANCES AND HAZARDS. NO additional nuisances and / or hazards are identified which might adversely impact the subject in a negative way. Many Housing Programs have additional requirements with respect to common nuisances and hazards. These include High Pressure Pipelines; Fall Hazards (High Voltage Transmission Lines and Support Structures); Oil or Gas Wells, Sour Gas Wells and Slush Pits; and Development planned on filled ground. There may also be additional regional or local requirements.
|
Mitigation
Describe all mitigation measures that will be taken for the Housing Requirements.
PROJECT IS IN COMPLIANCE.
NO particular mitigation measures are necessary or needed.
The Phase 1 ESA Report in the Findings, Conclusions, Opinions and Recommendations pages 37 and 38 indicate, This assessment has revealed NO evidence of recognized environmental conditions (RECs) or environmental issues in connection with the subject property.
|
Screen Summary
Compliance Determination
PROJECT IS IN COMPLIANCE. NO particular mitigation plans or measures are necessary or needed. The Phase 1 ESA Report in the Findings, Conclusions, Opinions and Recommendations pages 37 and 38 indicate, This assessment has revealed NO evidence of recognized environmental conditions (RECs) or environmental issues in connection with the subject property. Please refer to the attached Phase 1 ESA Report for any additional compliance details and remarks with respect to Housing Requirements.
|
Supporting documentation
Are formal compliance steps or mitigation required?
Environmental Justice
General requirements
|
Legislation
|
Regulation
|
Determine if the project creates adverse environmental impacts upon a low-income or minority community. If it does, engage the community in meaningful participation about mitigating the impacts or move the project.
|
Executive Order 12898
|
|
HUD strongly encourages starting the Environmental Justice analysis only after all other laws and authorities, including Environmental Assessment factors if necessary, have been completed.
1. Were any adverse environmental impacts identified in any other compliance review portion of this project’s total environmental review?
Based on the response, the review is in compliance with this section.
Screen Summary
Compliance Determination
PROJECT IS IN COMPLIANCE. No adverse environmental impacts were identified in the project's total environmental review. The project is in compliance with Executive Order 12898.
|
Supporting documentation
Are formal compliance steps or mitigation required?
Share with your friends: |
