Final Environmental Assessment for the Long Term Airport Development at the Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport

Transcription

1 Final Environmental Assessment for the Long Term Airport Development at the Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport Prepared for the: The New Orleans Aviation Board (NOAB) and U.S. Department of Transportation - Federal Aviation Administration This Environmental Assessment becomes a Federal document when evaluated and signed and dated by the responsible FAA official. Responsible FAA Official Date December, 2013

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE TERMINAL REPLACEMENT PROJECT AT THE LOUIS ARMSTRONG NEW ORLEANS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Chapter ES. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1 Introduction ES-2 Project Purpose and Need ES-3 Alternatives Considered ES-4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences with Mitigation Page ES-1 ES-1 ES-1 ES-2 ES-3 1. INTRODUCTION Overview of the Airport Document Organization PURPOSE AND NEED Purpose for the Proposed Action Need for the Proposed Action Additional Benefits of the Proposed Action ALTERNATIVES Introduction Alternatives No Action Alternative Refurbishment Alternative Southside Alternative Westside Alternative Northside Alternative (Sponsor s Proposed Action) AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Air Quality Air Quality Status Coastal Resources Compatible Land Use Airport Study Area Regional Study Area Department of Transportation Section 4(f) Lands Farmlands Fish, Wildlife, and Plants Early Coordination with Agencies Status of Listed Species and Habitat 4-15 Table of Contents December 2013 i

3 Table of Contents Field Investigation Floodplains Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste Historic, Archaeological, Architectural, and Cultural Resources Light Emissions and Visual Impacts Natural Resources, Energy Supply, and Sustainable Design Noise Aircraft-Related Noise Surface Traffic-Related Noise Socioeconomic, Environmental Justice, Children s Health and Safety Risks Surface Traffic Demographics Children s Environmental Health and Safety Water Quality Wetlands Wetland Assessment Wild and Scenic Rivers Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Projects in Airport Vicinity Past Actions Present Actions Long-Term Future Actions ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Air Quality Background Environmental Consequences Climate Change Mitigation and Best Management Practices Coastal Resources Background Environmental Consequences Mitigation and Best Management Practices Compatible Land Use Background Environmental Consequences Mitigation and Best Management Practices Construction Impacts Background Environmental Consequences Mitigation and Best Management Practices Department of Transportation Section 4(f) Background Environmental Consequences Mitigation and Best Management Practices Fish, Wildlife, and Plants Background Environmental Consequences Mitigation and Best Management Practices Floodplains Background 5-43 Table of Contents December 2013 ii

4 Table of Contents Environmental Consequences Mitigation and Best Management Practices Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste Background Environmental Consequences Mitigation and Best Management Practices Historic, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources Background Environmental Consequences Mitigation and Best Management Practices Light Emissions and Visual Impacts Background Environmental Consequences Mitigation and Best Management Practices Natural Resources, Energy supply, and Sustainable Design Background Environmental Consequences Mitigation and Best Management Practices Noise Background Environmental Consequences Mitigation and Best Management Practices Secondary (Induced) Impacts Background Environmental Consequences Mitigation and Best Management Practices Socioeconomic Impacts, Environmental Justice, and Children s Health and Safety Risks Background Environmental Consequences Mitigation and Best Management Practices Water Quality Background Environmental Consequences Mitigation and Best Management Practices Wetlands Background Environmental Consequences Mitigation and Best Management Practices Cumulative Impacts Background Environmental Consequences CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION Public and Agency Involvement Public Involvement and Agency Coordination Approach and Process Early Public and Agency Notification and Coordination Draft EA Notification and Distribution GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS Abbreviations 7-1 Table of Contents December 2013 iii

5 Table of Contents 7.2 Terms REFERENCES LIST OF PREPARERS Lead Agency Principal Reviewers Principal Preparers NOAB Civil and Architectural Design Consultants Environmental Planning Consultants 9-2 APPENDICES A. Background Information on Need for Project B. Agency Communication and Correspondence C. Phase 1 Cultural Resource Survey D. Wetlands E. Air Quality F. Biological Resource Survey G. Analysis of Need and Location of Noise Barriers Along Airport Entrance Road H. Traffic I. Briefing on Drainage Issues J. Scoping Report K. Floodplain Alternatives Analysis L. Hazardous Materials Database M. Comments and Responses to Comments LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1 Airport Location 1-3 Figure 1-2 Airport Layout Plan 1-5 Figure 2-1 Terminal and Concourses at MSY 2-2 Figure 3-1 Refurbishment Alternative 3-3 Figure 3-2 Southside Alternative 3-7 Figure 3-3 Westside Alternative 3-11 Figure 3-4 Northside Alternative 3-13 Figure 3-5 Concept Design for New Entrance Road 3-16 Figure 3-6 Potential Sites for Relocating the ASR, RTR, and LLWAS 3-17 Figure 3-7 NOAB Proposed Funding Scenario 3-19 Figure 4-1 Regional Study Area 4-2 Figure 4-2 Airport Study Area 4-3 Figure 4-3 Regional and Airport Study Areas 4-4 Figure 4-4 Louisiana Coastal Zone 4-8 Figure 4-5 Jefferson Parish Management Units 4-9 Figure 4-6 Land Uses within the Airport Study Area 4-11 Figure 4-7 Land Uses within the Regional Study Area 4-12 Figure 4-8 Section 4(f) Resources within the Regional Study Area 4-14 Figure 4-9 Current Hydrologic Basin Delineation at the Airport 4-32 Table of Contents December 2013 iv

6 Table of Contents Figure 4-10 Drainage Improvements at the Airport 4-33 Figure 4-11 Areas of Interest 4-35 Figure 4-12 Potential Wetland Area 5 and Test Unit Sites 4-35 Figure 5-1 Aircraft Ground Movements No Action Alternative 5-6 Figure 5-2 Roadway Segments 5-9 Figure 5-3 Aircraft Ground Movements Northside Alternative 5-17 Figure 5-4 Floodplain Impacts for Refurbishment Alternative 5-45 Figure 5-5 Floodplain Impacts for Southside Alternative 5-46 Figure 5-6 Floodplain Impacts for Westside Alternative 5-47 Figure 5-7 Floodplain Impacts for Northside Alternative 5-48 Figure 5-8 Street views within the Residential Neighborhood North of the Airport 5-69 Figure 5-9 Roadway Segments in Airport Vicinity Analyzed for Noise Impacts 5-84 Figure 5-10 Proposed Entrance Road for the Northside Alternative 5-85 Figure 5-11 Noise Sensitive Receptors (Along Aberdeen Street and Veterans Memorial Boulevard Between Aberdeen Street and Tupelo Street) 5-89 Figure 5-12 Noise Sensitive Receptors (Along Veterans Memorial Boulevard Figure 5-13 Between Acron Street and Lexington Street) 5-91 Noise Sensitive Receptors (Along Veterans Memorial Boulevard Between Bainbridge Street and Williams Boulevard) 5-93 Figure 5-14 Noise Barrier Design Figure 5-15 Airport Cargo Road Rehabilitation Figure 6-1 The Times Picayune Advertisement 6-3 LIST OF TABLES Table ES-1 Environmental Consequences Summary ES-5 Table 2-1 Overview of Terminal and Concourses at MSY 2-3 Table 2-2 Passenger Enplanements Forecasts for MSY 2-3 Table 4-1 Attainment Designations 4-6 Table 4-2 Air Monitoring Data in the MSY Area ( ) 4-6 Table 4-3 Federally Endangered Species Occurring in Jefferson Parish 4-16 Table 4-4 State of Louisiana Endangered Species in Jefferson Parish 4-16 Table 4-5 State of Louisiana Endangered Natural Communities in Jefferson Parish 4-17 Table 4-6 Federal and State Hazardous Materials Database Summary 4-20 Table 4-7 Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections 4-24 Table 4-8 Capacity Analysis Summary for Existing Conditions 4-26 Table 4-9 Population and Housing Data ( ) 4-29 Table 4-10 Income, Poverty, Employment, and Ethnicity Data (2010) 4-30 Table 4-11 Imperiled and Threatened Waterways in the Regional Study Area 4-33 Table 4-12 Recommendations for Formal Wetland Delineation 4-36 Table 5-1 Aircraft Operational Summary No Action Alternative 5-5 Table 5-2 Surface Traffic Activity No Action Alternative 5-7 Table 5-3 Aircraft and Roadway Vehicular-Related Emissions No Action Alternative 5-7 Table 5-4 Surface Traffic Activity Refurbishment Alternative 5-8 Table 5-5 Traffic Emissions Summary Refurbishment Alternative 5-11 Table of Contents December 2013 v

7 Table of Contents Table 5-6 Surface Traffic Activity Southside Alternative 5-12 Table 5-7 Traffic Emissions Summary Southside Alternative 5-12 Table 5-8 Surface Traffic Activity Westside Alternative 5-14 Table 5-9 Traffic Emissions Summary Westside Alternative 5-14 Table 5-10 Aircraft Operational Summary Northside Alternative 5-16 Table 5-11 Surface Traffic Activity Northside Alternative 5-16 Table 5-12 Construction Emissions Summary Northside Alternative 5-18 Table 5-13 Operational Emissions Summary Northside Alternative 5-19 Table 5-14 Floodplain Impacts 5-49 Table 5-15 Noise Abatement Criteria 5-87 Table 5-16 Traffic Volume and Speed Data for Northside Alternative 5-88 Table 5-17 Noise Modeling Analysis Results 5-95 Table 5-18 Capacity Analysis Summary for 2018 No Action Alternative Table 5-19 Capacity Analysis Summary for 2023 No Action Alternative Table 5-20 Capacity Analysis Summary for 2018 Refurbishment, Southside, and Westside Alternatives Table 5-21 Capacity Analysis Summary for 2023 Refurbishment, Southside, and Westside Alternatives Table 5-22 Capacity Analysis Summary for 2018 Northside Alternative Table 5-23 Capacity Analysis Summary for 2023 Northside Alternative Table 5-24 Comparison of 2018 Intersection LOS for the No Action Alternative, the Refurbishment/Southside/Westside Alternatives, and the Northside Alternative Table 5-25 Comparison of 2023 Intersection LOS for the No Action Alternative, the Refurbishment/Southside/Westside Alternatives, and the Northside Alternative Table 5-26 Comparison of 2018 Intersection LOS for the Northside Alternative Without and With Recommended Improvements Table 5-27 Comparison of 2023 Intersection LOS for the Northside Alternative Without and With Recommended Improvements Table 6-1 Environmental Assessment Public Scoping Meetings Held June 18 and June 19, Table of Contents December 2013 vi

8 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This EA complies with the requirements set forth in the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Order B, 1 FAA Order E, 2 as well as applicable Executive Orders, Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA, and other Federal, State, and local requirements. This chapter provides an overview of the (Airport). 1.1 OVERVIEW OF THE AIRPORT The Airport is a commercial service airport that is owned and operated by the City of New Orleans (City). The nine-member New Orleans Aviation Board (NOAB or Board), which was created in 1943, represents the City in all aviation matters in consultation with state, national, and international government agencies. The Board oversees the administration, operation, and maintenance of the Airport. The Airport is adjacent to Interstate 10, approximately 10 miles west of the New Orleans Central Business District, three miles south of Lake Pontchartrain, and one-half mile north of the Mississippi River (see Figure 1-1). The Airport lies at an elevation of four feet above mean sea level (MSL). Most of the Airport is located in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, with a small portion located in unincorporated St. Charles Parish. The Airport occupies approximately 1,600 acres. This area includes all Airport facilities as well as parcels that the Board acquired before 2006 for noise mitigation. The FAA s National Plan of Integrated Airports System (NPIAS) classifies the Airport as a primary medium hub airport. 3 This means that Louis Armstrong International Airport serves between one-quarter of one percent and one percent of all annual passengers boarding aircraft in the United States. The Airport s existing terminal structure is divided into four separate concourses and a main terminal structure. The airfield is comprised of two runways and the taxiways, aprons, and other facilities needed to serve aircraft using those runways. Runway 10-28, the Airport s primary runway, is a concrete runway that is 10,104 feet long by 150 feet wide. Runway 1-19 is a concrete runway that is 7,001 feet long by 150 feet wide. Figure 1-2 depicts the current Airport Layout Plan (ALP). 1 Federal Aviation Administration, Order B, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions, April 26, Federal Aviation Administration, Order E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, March 20, Federal Aviation Administration, National Plan of Integrated Airports System. Available at: Accessed: September 2011 Chapter 1: Introduction December

9 Chapter 1 Introduction 1.2 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION This EA is organized into the following chapters: Chapter 1: Introduction - This chapter provides an overview of the Airport and how the EA is presented. Chapter 2: Purpose and Need - This chapter provides a brief description of the problems the Board is facing at the Airport (i.e., the Need) and the NOAB s proposed solutions to solve those problems (i.e., the Purpose). The chapter also discusses the actions the Board requests FAA to take so the Board may meet the Purpose and Need. Chapter 3: Alternatives - This chapter provides an overview of the various alternative solutions to the problems the Board is facing and how those alternatives were selected or rejected for further analyses in this EA. Chapter 4: Affected Environment - This chapter describes existing environmental conditions within the project study area. The chapter also identifies past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions at the Airport that will be used in the EA s cumulative impact analysis. Chapter 5: Environmental Consequences - This chapter describes the potential environmental effects that the No Action, Proposed Action, and each reasonable alternative would have on the affected environment. Pursuant to regulations at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Sections and (a)(2), as well as CEQ guidance documents 4, this chapter also discusses cumulative impacts. That discussion focuses on the effects the Proposed Action would have on some environmental resources, in combination with the effects on those resources due to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. Where appropriate, the EA contains figures and tables to clarify the analyses presented in this chapter. Chapter 6: Public Outreach This chapter discusses the coordination and public involvement associated with the EA process. The chapter also presents a list of Federal, state, and local agencies and other interested parties that have been involved in EA coordination efforts. Chapter 7: Glossary and Acronyms This chapter contains terms and acronyms used in this EA. Chapter 8: References This chapter contains a list of references used in the development of this EA. Chapter 9: List of Preparers This chapter contains a list of names and the qualifications of individuals who prepared, contributed to, and reviewed this EA. Appendices: The appendices present the relevant material, analyses, or technical reports that were used to prepare this EA. 4 CEQ, Considering Cumulative Effects, January 1997, and Guidance on the Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis, June 24, Chapter 1: Introduction December

10 Chapter 1 Introduction Figure 1-1 AIRPORT LOCATION Source: RS&H, 2013 Chapter 1: Introduction December

11 Chapter 1 Introduction THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Chapter 1: Introduction December

12 Chapter 1 Introduction Figure 1-2 AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN Source: (Airport Layout Plan), 2009 Chapter 1: Introduction December

13 Chapter 1 Introduction THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Chapter 1: Introduction December

14 2 CHAPTER 2 PURPOSE AND NEED 2.1 PURPOSE FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION The purpose of the proposed terminal improvements and ancillary development projects is to better meet the needs of the traveling public and air carriers. The goals and objectives of the City of New Orleans, Louisiana (the City), through the New Orleans Aviation Board (NOAB), are to: (1) right-size the terminal building and gates to better align the future facility with projected operations and enplanements and decrease operating costs; (2) address the problems associated with the aging infrastructure of the existing terminal building and the need to replace mechanical and electrical systems and base building elements; and (3) enhance the efficiency of the terminal to reflect changes in the air transportation system since Each of these goals is discussed in more detail below. Appendix A provides more detailed background concerning the purpose for the Proposed Action. The Airport serves about 80 percent of the passengers traveling to and from Louisiana and plays a strategically important role in logistical activities that support the competitive role of south Louisiana in the global economy. The terminal is the first impression for airline passengers arriving in south Louisiana. To achieve the facility the City desires, the NOAB must make improvements to or replace the existing terminal facilities and the apron, taxiways, and roadways providing access to terminal and concourse facilities. The NOAB has requested FAA s unconditional approval of the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) to depict the proposed terminal improvements and ancillary development. The NOAB plans to apply for Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants (along with other potential funding sources identified on Figure 3-7) for projects such as terminal life safety systems, security infrastructure, airfield pavement, drainage, relocation of the lighting vault, relocation of navigational aids, geotechnical site investigations, and site surveying. Right-Sizing the Terminal The NOAB desires to provide the right-sized terminal building and concourses to accommodate the projected passengers traveling to and from New Orleans and decrease operating costs associated with a terminal building that is too large both for current and projected enplanements and operations. Rebuild Aging Infrastructure The NOAB recognizes that the current facilities require replacement, as they are beyond their useful life in terms of mechanical systems (electrical backbone system and the heating air conditioning and ventilation system), structural systems, passenger moving conveyance systems, and security systems. Base building elements will also require replacement due to age-related problems and modification to accommodate changing security requirements. Chapter 2: Purpose and Need December

15 Chapter 2 Purpose and Need Enhance Efficiency The NOAB desires to increase the efficiency of terminal operations by having one consolidated passenger security screening checkpoint, providing concession opportunities available to all passengers post-security regardless of which airline is being used, allowing through passengers the ability to make connecting flights on any concourse, and providing an in-line explosive detection system (EDS) for baggage. 2.2 NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION (Airport) currently has four separate concourses as part of the terminal building (see Figure 2-1). The original terminal building was constructed in 1959 and the concourses were built at various times during the past 38 years (see Table 2-1). Figure 2-1 TERMINAL AND CONCOURSES AT MSY SOURCE: NOAB, 2012 Right-Sizing the Terminal Concourses B, C, and D, which are the only operational concourses, provide a total of 42 gates at the Airport. However, only 22 of the gates are currently leased by airlines and only 30 gates are needed to accommodate forecasted passenger enplanements (see Table 2-2 for Passenger Enplanement Forecasts at the Airport). Therefore, maintaining the terminal with more gates than needed results in additional and unnecessary operating costs for the NOAB. Right-sizing the terminal, then, would more appropriately accommodate forecasted passenger enplanements and would reduce operating costs, resulting in an overall reduction in airline costs at the Airport. This would enable the Airport to be more competitive in the marketplace. Chapter 2: Purpose and Need December

16 Chapter 2 Purpose and Need Table 2-1 OVERVIEW OF TERMINAL AND CONCOURSES AT MSY Building Year Built Number of Gates Function Airlines Served Number of Passengers /a/ Percent Serving Demand Terminal 1959 N/A Ticketing, All 5,787, baggage claim Concourse Closed /b/ None 0 0 A Concourse B Scheduled airlines AirTran Southwest USAir 2,406, Concourse C Concourse D 1991 remodeled in 2007 due to tornado 1997 and updated Scheduled airlines and charter operations 11 Scheduled airlines Air Canada American Frontier JetBlue Delta United 1,526, ,854, Total ,787, /a/ Includes both arriving and departing passengers between January 1, 2012 and August 31, /b/ Because the number of gates at the Airport is greater than the number of gates needed to accommodate passengers, Concourse A was closed to reduce operating costs. The former tenants in Concourse A were relocated to Concourses B, C, and D. SOURCE: NOAB, 2012 Table 2-2 PASSENGER ENPLANEMENT FORECASTS FOR MSY /a/ Year Annual Enplanements Annual Increase in Enplanements Increase in Enplanements over 2011 Levels FAA TAF ,280, ,309, % 0.68% 4,381, ,529, % 5.80% 4,512, ,620, % 7.94% 4,527, ,712, % 10.09% 4,547, ,806, % 12.30% 4,557, ,902, % 14.54% 4,584, ,000, % 16.83% 4,655,739 SOURCE: NOAB, 2012 /a/ The forecasts developed by NOAB are higher than the Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) prepared by the FAA. The NOAB forecasts are being used because the annual increases in enplanements has been higher than that of the TAF and airlines serving the Airport have identified increased service to existing and new destinations in In addition, the NOAB forecasts are within 10% of the TAF, which is consistent with Paragraph 706b(3)(b) of FAA Order B, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions. The FAA has approved the use of these forecasts (see Appendix B-12). Problems With Aging Infrastructure The aging terminal and concourses also result in greater maintenance and operational costs in terms of utilities, cleaning, heating and cooling, and general maintenance. Many of the Chapter 2: Purpose and Need December

17 Chapter 2 Purpose and Need infrastructure systems within the terminal building and concourses have exceeded their life expectancies or are outdated. Continuous maintenance of these systems, including their mechanical, electrical, and structural components, may result in intermittent disruptions to the systems and unforeseen expenditures. The terminal and its concourses need updating or replacement to meet today s demands as well as those expected to occur in the short and long terms. Table 2-2 shows departing passenger (enplanement) levels alone will increase by 16.83% by 2018 (thus, the future need for 30 gates instead of the current need for 22 gates). The forecasted increase in passengers will further place demands on the mechanical and electrical systems of the aging terminal building and concourses. Enhance Efficiency The terminal building and the concourses were mostly constructed prior to 2001 when security procedures were much different from those at airports today. As a result, the terminal does not operate in the most efficient manner to meet today s airport requirements. For example, the current physical layout of the terminal building and concourses requires three separate passenger security screening checkpoints for Concourses B, C, and D. As a result, passengers arriving on any one of the concourses cannot transfer to a flight on another concourse without having to go through the passenger security screening checkpoint for the concourse on which the connecting flight is located. This reduces the efficiency of Airport operations and also results in greater expenditures for operating three separate checkpoints. 2.3 ADDITIONAL BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The current configuration of the terminal and concourses also restricts the ability of the NOAB to increase non-airline revenue. For example, there is not an optimum balance of restaurants and retail shops pre- and post-security, which reduces the amount of non-airline revenue the NOAB could receive from passengers. In addition, the existing landside facilities do not provide a complete range of parking options for local passengers, such as a parking facility with credit card-only operations. Providing the right-sized terminal would help the NOAB increase non-airline revenue and decrease airline costs. Elements of the proposed project that would help increase non-airline revenue include: balancing restaurants and retail shops pre- and post-security; providing a range of parking options for passengers; and providing redevelopment space on the south side of the Airport in the areas of the existing terminal and concourses that would be vacated when a replacement terminal is constructed. A right-sized terminal would decrease airline costs for operating at the Airport by reducing utility, maintenance, cleaning, and associated costs for operating the terminal building and concourses. Additionally, providing an in-line EDS would reduce airline cooperating costs by eliminating the labor costs associated with the personnel who currently cart baggage to the EDS machines. Thus, a right-sized terminal would assist NOAB in reducing costs per enplanement (CPE) and fulfilling its grant assurance obligation to be as self-sustaining as possible without making major changes in its business model for operating the Airport. Chapter 2: Purpose and Need December

18 3 CHAPTER 3 ALTERNATIVES 3.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter summarizes the screening analysis conducted to identify a range of alternatives for evaluation. The summary of the alternatives screening analysis presents the following: an overview of the structure of the alternatives screening analysis; and a list of alternatives considered, including the No Action Alternative. As discussed in the Purpose and Need Statement, the three primary purposes of the Proposed Action are to: (1) right-size the terminal building and gates to better align the future facility with projected operations and enplanements and decrease operating costs; (2) address the problems associated with the aging infrastructure of the existing terminal building and the need to replace mechanical and electrical systems and base building elements; and (3) enhance the efficiency of the terminal to reflect changes in the air transportation system since The New Orleans Aviation Board (NOAB) also would apply for Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants (along with other potential funding sources identified on Figure 3-7) for projects such as terminal life safety systems, security infrastructure, airfield pavement, drainage, relocation of the lighting vault, relocation of navigational aids, geotechnical site investigations, and site surveying. Four alternatives have been identified that would meet the purpose and need of the NOAB. In compliance with FAA guidance and regulations associated with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the No Action Alternative also is included. The following is a discussion of each alternative. 3.2 ALTERNATIVES No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would not result in any improvements or changes to the existing terminal building, terminal access roads, parking facilities, and ancillary facilities at the Airport. Thus, the No Action Alternative would not right-size the terminal, address problems arising from the aging infrastructure and exceeding its useful life, or increase the operational efficiency of the terminal. Therefore, the No Action Alternative would not meet the Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action. As described in Chapter 2, departing passenger levels will increase 16.83% by Under the No Action Alternative, the existing terminal would continue to operate inefficiently (e.g., separate passenger security screening checkpoints). The current configuration of the terminal and concourses would remain as they are today and continue to restrict the ability of the NOAB to increase non-airline revenue. Selection of the No Action Alternative would result in other lost economic opportunities for the NOAB (e.g., improved parking options for local passengers). Finally, greater maintenance and operational costs (e.g., utilities, cleaning, heat and cooling, and general maintenance) would continue to rise for the NOAB and increase airline costs. Although the No Action Alternative would not meet the Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action, this alternative was retained for detailed analysis in this Environmental Assessment (EA). The EA does so for environmental baseline comparative purposes, to fulfill Council on Chapter 3: Alternatives December

19 Chapter 3- Alternatives Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR Part 1502) implementing NEPA, and to comply with FAA Order E, Change 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, and FAA Order B, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions Refurbishment Alternative Figure 3-1 presents an overview of the Refurbishment Alternative. No acquisition of property would be required for implementation of the Refurbishment Alternative. Terminal Building As noted below, the Refurbishment Alternative would result in the continued use of the existing terminal building and concourses and their 42 gates. As a result, routine maintenance of the terminal building and concourses would continue. Improvements would be made to enable the terminal building and the concourses to operate more efficiently. The improvements would include the following: modernize Concourse B; construct a new consolidated security screening checkpoint (SSCP); construct an airside corridor and retail space; and construct in-line baggage screening and baggage makeup improvements. The terminal building would continue to have a total of 42 airline gates, which is greater than the number of gates needed to accommodate the forecasted number of enplanements. The maintenance and operational costs in the existing terminal building and concourses does not make it feasible to reduce the number of gates at the Airport. Since the Airport s mechanical and electrical systems cannot be partitioned off to areas of operation, it would be inefficient and impractical to operate select gates of the concourses. The existing passenger boarding bridges have 400 hertz electrical systems and pre-conditioned air (PCA). Using 400 hertz and PCA is the most efficient and environmentally friendly way to provide power to aircraft parked at the gate and allows aircraft to avoid using auxiliary power units (APU) or diesel-powered ground power units. Terminal Access Roads With the continued use of the existing terminal building and concourses, the Refurbishment Alternative would not modify any of the existing access roadways to the terminal building. Parking Facilities The existing parking facilities are not adequate to accommodate the demand for parking. As a result, the Refurbishment Alternative would allow for the development of some parking facilities to enable the NOAB to better provide the range of parking options for local passengers. The two potential parking developments would be: expand the existing long-term parking garage by 1,200 spaces; and construct a 3,500-space long-term surface parking lot and associated access roadway on the north side of the Airport. Chapter 3: Alternatives December

20 Chapter 3 - Alternatives Figure 3-1 REFURBISHMENT ALTERNATIVE Source: Atkins, 2013 Chapter 3: Alternatives December

21 Chapter 3- Alternatives THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Chapter 3: Alternatives December

22 Chapter 3 - Alternatives Expansion of the existing long-term parking lot would be immediately west of the existing terminal building and south of the existing consolidated rental car facility. Access to the longterm parking lot would be from the existing terminal loop roadway. The remote surface parking lot would be on the north side of the Airport. Access to the remote surface parking lot would be via Aberdeen Street. Ancillary Facilities The Refurbishment Alternative would include space on the existing commercial aircraft apron for up to 13 parking positions for aircraft that remain overnight (RON) at the Airport. These RONs would be located in the vicinity of Concourse B. Cost The Refurbishment Alternative is estimated to cost about $595 million Southside Alternative Figure 3-2 presents an overview of the Southside Alternative. No acquisition of property would be required for implementation of the Southside Alternative. Terminal Building The Southside Alternative would result in the redevelopment of the terminal building and two of the three concourses in the same general location as the existing terminal building and concourses. This alternative would not result in any changes to Concourse D and it would continue to be operated as it is today. Specifically, the components of the Southside Alternative for the terminal building would include the following: demolish Concourse A; demolish and reconstruct Concourse B; demolish and reconstruct Concourse C; continued use of Concourse D; construct a consolidated new Security Screening Checkpoint (SSCP); construct an airside corridor and retail space; and construct in-line baggage screening and baggage makeup improvements. The terminal building would have a total of 30 airline gates, which is the number of gates needed to accommodate the forecasted number of enplanements. The passenger boarding bridges at the 30 gates would have 400 hertz electrical systems and PCA. Similar to the Refurbishment Alternative, using 400 hertz and PCA is the most efficient and environmentally friendly way to provide power to aircraft parked at the gate and allows aircraft to avoid using APU or diesel-powered ground power units. Terminal Access Roads The Southside Alternative would include improvements to the terminal loop roadway to provide a more direct route to the terminal building s curb frontage compared to the existing terminal loop roadway. Chapter 3: Alternatives December

23 Chapter 3- Alternatives Parking Facilities The Southside Alternative would result in the development of some parking facilities to enable the NOAB to better provide the range of parking options for local passengers. The three potential parking developments would be: reconfigure the existing short-term parking garage to 2,000 spaces; reconfigure the existing long-term garage to 3,000 spaces; construct a 3,000-space, long-term garage; and construct a 3,500-space, remote surface parking lot and associated access roadway on the north side of the Airport. The short-term parking garage would be expanded to the east, enabling the NOAB to increase the number of long-term parking spaces available. Both the existing short-term and long-term garages would also be reconfigured to accommodate more parking spaces. The remote surface parking lot would be on the north side of the Airport. Access to the remote surface parking lot would be via Aberdeen Street. Airfield Improvements The Southside Alternative would include the demolition of approximately 213,500 square yards of pavement associated with the existing commercial aircraft apron and the construction of approximately 204,500 square yards of commercial aircraft apron as a replacement to the existing aircraft apron. This would result in a decrease of approximately 9,000 square yards of pavement for the commercial aircraft apron. No other changes to the airfield would be needed for implementation of the Southside Alternative. Ancillary Facilities The Southside Alternative would include space on the new commercial aircraft apron for up to 13 RON parking positions. These RONs would be located in the vicinity of Concourse D. The Southside Alternative would continue to provide space for NOAB administrative offices in the terminal building. Cost The Southside Alternative is estimated to cost about $690 million. Chapter 3: Alternatives December

24 Chapter 3 - Alternatives Figure 3-2 SOUTHSIDE ALTERNATIVE Source: Atkins, 2013 Chapter 3: Alternatives December

25 Chapter 3- Alternatives THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Chapter 3: Alternatives December

26 Chapter 3 - Alternatives Westside Alternative Figure 3-3 presents an overview of the Westside Alternative. No acquisition of property would be required for implementation of the Westside Alternative. Terminal Building The Westside Alternative would result in the development of a new terminal building and three concourses to the west of the existing terminal building. This alternative would include a new terminal with 30 gates, retail space, baggage claim area, ticketing, an SSCP, and other ancillary uses and would result in the demolition of Concourses A and D. The terminal and other concourses (B and C) would either be demolished or repurposed in the future. In addition, this alternative would result in the construction of a concrete apron associated with the new terminal building. The terminal building and concourses associated with the Westside Alternative would have a total of 30 airline gates, which is the number of gates needed to accommodate the forecasted number of enplanements. Like the Southside Alternative, the Westside Alternative s passenger boarding bridges at the 30 gates would have 400-hertz electrical service and PCA to provide power and air conditioning to aircraft parked at the gates in an efficient and environmentallyfriendly manner. The location of the proposed terminal building associated with the Westside Alternative is in the location of existing cargo facilities. These cargo facilities would be relocated to an area on the north side of the Airport. Terminal Access Roads The Westside Alternative would include improvements to the terminal loop roadway to provide access to the new terminal building. These improvements would be an extension of the existing terminal loop roadway. Parking Facilities The Westside Alternative would result in the development of parking facilities to enable the NOAB to better provide the range of parking options for local passengers. The three potential parking developments would be: construct a 2,000-space, short-term parking garage; construct an 800-space, employee parking lot; and construct a 3,500-space, long-term surface parking lot and associated access roadway on the north side of the Airport. The short-term parking garage would be constructed immediately south of the new terminal building and across the extension of the terminal loop roadway. Access to the short-term parking garage would be from the extended terminal loop roadway. It is envisioned that this short-term parking garage would have three levels with approximately 700 spaces per level. The employee parking lot would be immediately west of the proposed terminal. Access to proposed employee parking lot would be from an improved terminal loop roadway. Chapter 3: Alternatives December

27 Chapter 3- Alternatives The long-term surface parking lot would be on the north side of the Airport and access would be via Aberdeen Street. Airfield Improvements The Westside Alternative would include the demolition of approximately 196,200 square yards of pavement associated with the existing development west of the existing terminal building and the construction of approximately 206,500 square yards of commercial aircraft apron. This would increase the paved apron area serving commercial aircraft by approximately 10,300 square yards. This commercial aircraft apron would be connected to Taxiway E. In addition, a new, 38,600-square-yard apron serving the relocated cargo area and a connector taxiway to Taxiway G would be constructed. Ancillary Facilities The Westside Alternative would include space for up to 13 RONs. These RONs would be located on the existing commercial aircraft apron immediately south of Taxiway E and north of the existing terminal building. The Westside Alternative includes a 240-space taxi waiting area between the existing consolidated rental car facility and the proposed long-term parking lot. The NOAB administrative offices would continue to be housed in the existing terminal building and would not be included in the new terminal building constructed for the Westside Alternative. Cost The Westside Alternative is estimated to cost about $610 million Northside Alternative (Sponsor s Proposed Action) Figure 3-4 presents an overview of the Northside Alternative. No acquisition of property would be required for implementation of the Northside Alternative. Terminal Building The Northside Alternative would result in the development of a terminal building and two concourses on the north side of the Airport. The alternative would include 30 gates to accommodate the forecasted number of enplanements. Boarding bridges serving the gates would have 400-hertz electrical service and PCA to provide efficient, environmentally-friendly electrical service and air conditioning to aircraft using the bridges. The terminal would also include retail space, baggage claim area, ticketing, an SSCP, and other ancillary uses. In addition, this alternative would require building a concrete apron to serve the new terminal building. This alternative would result in the demolition of Concourse A. The remaining terminal building and concourses are planned to remain the location of NOAB administrative functions, the Emergency Operations Center, and serve potential charter flights. Chapter 3: Alternatives December

28 Chapter 3 - Alternatives Figure 3-3 WESTSIDE ALTERNATIVE Source: Atkins, 2013 Chapter 3: Alternatives December

29 Chapter 3- Alternatives THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Chapter 3: Alternatives December

30 Chapter 3: Alternatives Figure 3-4 NORTHSIDE ALTERNATIVE Source: Atkins, 2013 Chapter 3: Alternatives December

31 Chapter 3- Alternatives THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Chapter 3: Alternatives December

32 Chapter 3: Alternatives Terminal Access Roads The NOAB has coordinated with the City of Kenner for many years in planning access to the north side of the Airport. As a result of this coordination and planning effort (see Appendix B-1), it was determined that there are two possible existing access points, Loyola Drive/Aberdeen Street and Bainbridge Street. It was further determined that the Loyola Drive/Aberdeen Street corridor is the only viable primary access route for the Northside Alternative as it is directly connected to Interstate 10. Therefore, reconstructing Bainbridge Street to serve as primary access was not an alternative that was carried forward for further analysis in this EA. However, Bainbridge Street would serve as a secondary access point and the primary service/delivery access. Access to the Bainbridge Street secondary entrance would be via Veterans Memorial Boulevard. In addition, consideration was given to creating an access road to the north side of the Airport from the existing Airport Access Road by tunneling under Runway 1/19 and the Duncan Canal culvert. This access road was rejected as not being feasible, and was therefore not carried forward for further analysis in this EA, because of the cost and insufficient surface traffic safety areas associated with connecting a road to the existing Airport Access Road. Therefore, under the Northside Alternative, access to the terminal from Interstate 10 would be via a new entrance road that would be constructed south of Veterans Memorial Boulevard along the Aberdeen Street corridor. The new entrance road would connect to and operate as a southern extension of Loyola Drive. The new entrance road would be a boulevard with a center median, no intersections south of Veterans Memorial Boulevard, noise walls along the entrance road between Veterans Memorial Boulevard and Canal 14, and landscaping in the center median and along the noise walls (see Figure 3-5). As a result, 27 th Street would be a cul-desac west of Decatur Street and Aberdeen Street would become a cul-de-sac north of 27 th Street (see the inset of Figure 3-4). In preparation for the possibility of future access via the Aberdeen Street corridor, the City of Kenner has appropriated the balance of property that would be required to accommodate the necessary road improvements. The appropriation occurred in As part of this coordination process, numerous meetings were held with the City of Kenner (see Appendix B-1). A secondary access to the new terminal building would be provided along the Bainbridge Street right-of-way. Improvements to Bainbridge Street would be required to provide this secondary connection. It is anticipated that this connection would primarily be for truck and delivery traffic to the new terminal building. Parking Facilities The Northside Alternative would result in the development of parking facilities enabling the NOAB to better provide the range of parking options for local passengers. The one potential parking development would be a 4,000-space parking garage. The Airport s long-term parking facilities would remain on the south side of the existing terminal. Airfield Improvements The Northside Alternative would include the demolition of portions of Taxiways D and G. Taxiway G would be reconfigured and extended to Taxiway S. In addition, connector Taxiways from Taxiway G would be constructed to new commercial aircraft apron. Chapter 3: Alternatives December

33 Chapter 3- Alternatives Figure 3-5 CONCEPT DESIGN FOR NEW ENTRANCE ROAD Noise Walls Source: Atkins, 2013 The partial demolition of Taxiways D and G would result in the removal of approximately 66,176 square yards of pavement. The commercial service apron and the relocation and extension of Taxiway G would result in the construction of approximately 383,000 square yards of pavement. Ancillary Facilities The Northside Alternative would include space for up to 13 RONs. Seven RON positions would be located west of the western concourse and six RON positions would be located south of the eastern concourse. The Northside Alternative includes a 240-space taxi waiting area northwest of the proposed parking garage. The NOAB administrative offices would continue to be housed in the existing terminal building and would not be included in the new terminal building constructed for the Northside Alternative. To allow for development on the north side of the Airport, an existing electrical vault, the airport surveillance radar (ASR) facility, the Remote Transmit Receiver (RTR), and the Low Level Windshear Alert System (LLWAS) would need to be relocated. The exact location of the relocated electrical vault is not yet known. The ASR could be moved to one of the four locations shown on Figure 3-6. The RTR could be moved to one of the three locations shown on Chapter 3: Alternatives December

34 Chapter 3: Alternatives Figure 3-6 POTENTIAL SITES FOR RELOCATING THE ASR, RTR, AND LLWAS Source: Atkins, 2013 Chapter 3: Alternatives December

35 Chapter 3- Alternatives THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Chapter 3: Alternatives December

36 Chapter 3: Alternatives Figure 3-6. The LLWAS could be moved to one of two locations shown on Figure 3-6. The location of the ASR, RTR and LLWAS would be coordinated with the FAA to ensure that all of these facilities would continue to operate efficiently and effectively at the Airport. Cost The NOAB has identified proposed funding sources for approximately $650 million to finance the development (design and construction) of the Sponsor s Proposed Action (Northside Alternative) from the following sources (see Figure 3-7): Figure 3-7 NOAB PROPOSED FUNDING SCENARIO /a/ NOAB Capital Funds 5% General Airport Revenue Bonds 37% Passenger Facility Charges 33% FAA AIP Grants 18% TSA Grants 3% LA State Aviation Fund Grants 4% /a/ Percentages rounded to the nearest whole number. This represents one of several possible funding scenarios. The NOAB believes the project is financially feasible over a range of scenarios. The FAA has not made a determination regarding the availability of Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funds. This will be the subject of future discussions. It should be noted that the FAA is not permitted to use discretionary funds for any terminal development projects (49 U.S.C (f)). Chapter 3: Alternatives December

37 Chapter 3- Alternatives THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Chapter 3: Alternatives December

38 4 CHAPTER 4 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT This chapter provides a description of the current physical, natural, and human environment within the (Airport) study areas established for this Environmental Assessment (EA). The environmental impacts of the alternatives retained for detailed analyses are presented in Chapter 5.0, Environmental Consequences. The Airport is located south of Interstate 10 and approximately 10 miles west of the New Orleans Central Business District. The Airport lies at an elevation of 4 above feet MSL 3 miles south of Lake Pontchartrain and 0.5 miles north of the Mississippi River. Most of the Airport is located in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, with a small portion located in St. Charles Parish, Louisiana. The Airport occupies approximately 1,500 acres, which include all Airport facilities as well as other parcels that have been acquired for noise mitigation. The Airport s existing terminal structure is divided into four separate concourses and a main terminal structure. The airfield is comprised of the two runways and the taxiways, aprons, and other facilities needed to serve aircraft using those runways. Figures 1-1 and 1-2 in Chapter 1 depict the Airport location and current Airport Layout Plan (ALP), respectively. For the purposes of describing the existing conditions in the Airport area and comparing the relative impact of the alternatives, two reasonable study areas were developed for this EA. These two study areas were established by prudent planning techniques based on the development of reasonable alternatives and prior environmental experience. The study areas encompass areas that fulfill the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the environmental impact categories described in FAA Order E, Change 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, and FAA Order B, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions. For environmental considerations in this EA that deal with broad, indirect impact issues, a Regional Study Area was used to describe features and assess impact potential. The Regional Study Area is based on a large geographic area to assess impacts that may occur in the surrounding communities, such as impacts to noise-sensitive land uses, socioeconomic impacts, Department of Transportation Section 4(f) resources, and historic and cultural resources. The Regional Study Area encompasses approximately 2,582 acres and includes portions of Jefferson Parish, St. Charles Parish, and the City of Kenner (see Figure 4-1). An Airport Study Area was similarly established for environmental considerations dealing with more specific, direct impact issues such as wetlands, floodplains, and biotic communities. The Airport Study Area encompasses approximately 728 acres, primarily includes the Airport property and represents the areas where direct disturbance of area features could potentially occur (see Figure 4-2). Figure 4-3 shows both the Regional and Airport Study Areas. Chapter 4: Affected Environment December

39 Chapter 4 Affected Environment Figure 4-1 REGIONAL STUDY AREA Source: RS&H, 2013 Chapter 4: Affected Environment December

40 Chapter 4 Affected Environment Figure 4-2 AIRPORT STUDY AREA Source: RS&H, 2013 Chapter 4: Affected Environment December

41 Chapter 4 Affected Environment Figure 4-3 REGIONAL AND AIRPORT STUDY AREAS Source: RS&H, 2013 Chapter 4: Affected Environment December

42 Chapter 4 Affected Environment 4.1 AIR QUALITY Details on the current and historical attainment status with respect to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), as well as recently recorded air monitoring data for the area surrounding MSY, are summarized in the following sections Air Quality Status The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets NAAQS in order to protect the public health or environmental welfare and currently has identified the following six criteria air pollutants for which NAAQS are applicable: Carbon Monoxide (CO), Lead (Pb), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO 2 ), Ozone (O 3 ), 8-Hour, Particulate Matter (PM 10 or PM 2.5 ), and Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ). Areas found to be in violation of one or more NAAQS for these pollutants are classified as a nonattainment area. States with nonattainment areas must develop a State Implementation Plan (SIP) demonstrating how the area will be brought back into attainment of the NAAQS within designated timeframes. Areas where concentrations of the criteria pollutants are below (i.e., within) these threshold levels are classified as attainment areas. Lastly, areas with prior nonattainment status that have since transitioned to attainment are known as maintenance areas. The current attainment/nonattainment designations for the area surrounding MSY are listed in Table 4-1. As shown, the area is presently in attainment for all of the EPA s current NAAQS. However, the area was designated maintenance of the now historical 1-hour O 3 standard in 1995, and currently has a federally approved maintenance plan under sections 110(a) and 185A of the Clean Air Act (CAA), set to expire in After revoking the 1-hour O 3 standard, EPA ruled that most areas were no longer subject to the 1-hour standard as of Nonetheless, the area s 1-hour maintenance plan is still federally enforceable and per the anti-backsliding provisions of the CAA, the area is still subject to certain federal requirements for nonattainment and maintenance areas. 1 As required by the EPA, the State of Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has established and maintains a permanent network of air quality monitoring stations throughout the state. These monitors record concentrations of pollutants in the ambient (i.e., outdoor) air to gauge compliance with the NAAQS. Air quality monitoring data collected at stations closest to the Airport Study Area are shown on Table 4-2. For ease of reference, the applicable NAAQS for each monitored pollutant is included on the table as well as the distance and direction from the Airport As shown, only the Kenner monitor has reported recent violations of the NAAQS for O 3. When ascribing attainment/nonattainment status to an area, the EPA, in consultation with state and local air quality agencies, typically considers concentrations in an entire statistical area (i.e.; a collection of monitors) in combination with other factors. For ozone, the area s attainment status is based, in part, on the 4 th highest monitor reading averaged over a 3-year period. Based on EPA s most current review of certified data from 2008 through 2010, the area was designated attainment Codified at 40 CFR , the anti-backsliding provisions of the Clean Air Act prevent the rescission of measures or requirements applicable to areas in which a NAAQS is revoked or relaxed by the EPA, such that select requirements continue to apply to an area after revocation or relaxation of the NAAQS in question (i.e., the 1-hour O 3 NAAQS), if the requirements were applied in the area based on the area's prior designation. See Chapter 4: Affected Environment December

43 Chapter 4 Affected Environment Table 4-1 ATTAINMENT DESIGNATIONS Pollutant Carbon monoxide (CO) Lead (Pb) Nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ) Ozone (O 3 ), 1-Hour Ozone (O 3 ), 8-Hour Particulate matter (coarse or PM 10 ) Particulate matter (fine or PM 2.5 ) Sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) Designation Attainment Attainment Attainment Maintenance Attainment Attainment Attainment Attainment SOURCE: US Environmental Protection Agency, The Green Book Nonattainment Areas ( Table 4-2 AIR MONITORING DATA IN THE MSY AREA ( ) Site Name and Address (Dir. from MSY) Pollutant Averaging Period NAAQS Year Exceeds NAAQS Kenner West Temple Place 3.6 miles NW Chalmette Vista 24 E. Chalmette Circle 17.1 miles E LaPlace 15 Garden Grove 14 miles E Capitol 1061-A Leesville Avenue 64.3 miles NW Chalmette High School 1100 E. Judge Perez Drive 17.1 miles E Kenner West Temple Place 3.6 miles NW Kenner West Temple Place 3.6 miles NW PM 2.5 Annual (averaged over 3 years) 24-hour (98th percentile, averaged over 3 years) No µg/m No µg/m 3 PM hour 150 µg/m No Pb Rolling 3-month Avg µg/m 3 The 3-month avg. statistic is currently not available CO 8-hour 9 ppm No 1-hour 35 ppm No SO 2 NO 2 O 3 1-hour (99th percentile, averaged over 3 years) 75 ppb No 3-hour 0.5 ppm Data not available NA 1-hour (98th percentile, averaged over 3 years) 100 ppb No Annual 53 ppb Data not available NA 8-hour (4th-highest, averaged over 3 years) ppm /a/ 5 NA No Source: U.S. EPA AIRData Monitor Data Queries 2011; and U.S. EPA Air Quality System Detailed AQS Data, NOTES: NA = not applicable, ppm = parts per million, µg/m 3 = micrograms per cubic meter, mg/m 3 = milligrams per cubic meter. /a/ Final rule signed March 12, The 1997 ozone standard (0.08 ppm, annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour concentration, averaged over 3 years) and related implementation rules remain in place. In 1997, EPA revoked the 1-hour ozone standard (0.12 ppm, not to be exceeded more than once per year) in all areas, although some areas have continued obligations under that standard ( anti-backsliding ). The 1-hour ozone standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations above 0.12 ppm is less than or equal to 1. Chapter 4: Affected Environment December

44 Chapter 4 Affected Environment 4.2 COASTAL RESOURCES Louisiana has 15,000 miles of shoreline, located in 19 southern parishes, and extends from the Pearl River westward to the Sabine River. The Office of Coastal Management (OCM) of the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources is charged with implementing the Louisiana Coastal Resources Program (LCRP). The LCRP seeks to protect, develop, and when possible, restore or enhance the resources of the state s coastal zone. The OCM regulates development activities and manages the resources of the Coastal Zone. 3 The Airport Study Area is entirely within Jefferson Parish. The Regional Study Area is primarily in Jefferson Parish, but extends slightly into the eastern portion of St. Charles Parish. Both study areas lie entirely within the Louisiana Coastal Zone. Both Jefferson Parish and St. Charles Parish are within the Coastal Zone. The impact of the State s Coastal Zone Management Program is critically important to the future of both parishes. Figure 4-4 depicts the Louisiana Coastal Zone and the (Airport) location within the zone. Under the State s Coastal Management Program, each parish is able to develop a local coastal program (LCP). Once an LCP has received federal and state approval, the parish becomes the permitting authority for coastal uses of local concern. Currently, 10 coastal parishes, including Jefferson Parish have approved LCPs. St. Charles Parish s LCP is currently under development. Per the approved LCP, Jefferson Parish divided the parish into 12 environmental management units (EMU) to effectively manage the coastal resources of Jefferson Parish (see Figure 4-5). The Airport is in the East Bank EMU 3, which is bounded on the north by Lake Pontchartrain Levee, the east by Orleans Parish, the south by the Mississippi River, and the west by St. Charles Parish. The East Bank EMU is over 80 percent developed, consisting of residential, commercial, and industrial uses. The wetlands in the East Bank EMU 3 have been predominately drained. The drainage in the East Bank EMU 3 is almost completely controlled by use of four pumping stations positioned along the Lake Pontchartrain Levee. A small portion of the southeastern corner of the East Bank EMU 3 drains naturally to the Seventeenth Street Canal. Since development occupies most of the East Bank EMU 3, there are no existing significant biotic communities. The East Bank EMU 3 is mostly comprised of disturbed area vegetation and suburban lawn vegetation according to the Department of Natural Resources. However, isolated pockets of modified forested wetlands may be found but they are rapidly deteriorating due to encroaching development. The Mississippi River is located in the East Bank EMU 3 and acts as a major transportation corridor for goods and materials. The Mississippi River is the drinking water source of Jefferson Parish, as well as a conduit for waste disposed by numerous industries and communities in Jefferson Parish and other areas. All waterbodies in the East Bank EMU 3 are manmade canals used to transport storm water runoff and sewage treatment plant effluents to Lake Pontchartrain. 3 A Coastal User s Guide to the Louisiana Coastal Resources Program, Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Chapter 4: Affected Environment December

45 Chapter 4 Affected Environment Figure 4-4 LOUISIANA COASTAL ZONE Source: Department of Natural Resources Office of Coastal Management, 2013 Jefferson Parish s LCP identifies the following major goals for managing the East Bank EMU 3: continued planned developments; improved transportation corridors; improved drainage and sewage treatment facilities; and pollution abatement. 5 Chapter 4: Affected Environment December

46 Chapter 4 Affected Environment Figure 4-5 JEFFERSON PARISH MANAGEMENT UNITS Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport Source: Department of Natural Resource Louisiana Coastal Programs (Jefferson Parish), 2013 Also, according to Jefferson Parish s LCP, the following policies should be employed to mitigate adverse environmental impacts and achieve the Program s goals: stabilizing material should be used on areas of severe erosion along the length of canals; existing canals and pipeline corridors are to be used when appropriate; and riprap or vegetation stabilization should be used instead of bulkheading COMPATIBLE LAND USE This section describes the land uses within the Airport Study Area and the Regional Study Area. The Airport, while owned by the City of New Orleans (City), is primarily located within Jefferson Parish and the City of Kenner but a small portion extends into the eastern portion of St. Charles Parish. Therefore, except for the area around the Runway 10 approach end in St. Charles Parish, the land uses surrounding the Airport primarily fall within the City of Kenner s jurisdiction. 7 Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Programs, available at: Accessed March Chapter 4: Affected Environment December

47 Chapter 4 Affected Environment Airport Study Area The Airport Study Area includes northern and southern portions of the Airport, as well as portions of the City of Kenner north of the Airport. The following land uses occur in the Airport Study Area (see Figure 4-6): Residential and commercial land uses occur in the northern portion of the Airport Study Area, between Canal 14 and Interstate 10. The commercial uses include a gas station, lodging, and dining. Industrial land uses include auto repair shops, construction-related businesses, and various warehouses. These industrial land uses occur on the western edge of the Airport Study Area south of Canal Regional Study Area The Regional Study Area includes the entire Airport property and portions of the City of Kenner that are north and east of the Airport. The portion of the City of Kenner that is included in the Regional Study Area is a mix of residential, commercial, industrial, public, and recreational land uses and vacant areas (see Figure 4-7). Northern Regional Study Area Industrial (i.e. warehouses) and commercial (i.e. lodging, dining, etc.) land uses primarily comprise the area in the northern portion of the Regional Study Area. However, residential land uses are both north and south of Veterans Memorial Boulevard and north of Canal 14. Drive-by surveys of the area show that multi-family residential land uses dominate the area south of Veterans Memorial Boulevard and north of Canal 14. Eastern Regional Study Area The area east of the Airport, extending east to Williams Boulevard, is a mix of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, and public land uses. The residential land uses occur mostly along Connecticut Avenue, Delaware Avenue/Daniel Street, and Florida Avenue/Minor Street. Single-family residential primarily occur in that area. A recreational area occurs north of 23rd Street, while another area is located south of 18th Street. This latter recreational area has a number of soccer fields. A third recreational area with baseball and soccer fields is located east of Airport Road and north of 10th Street. Chapter 4: Affected Environment December

48 Chapter 4 Affected Environment Figure 4-6 LAND USES WITHIN THE AIRPORT STUDY AREA Source: NOAB, 2012; City of Kenner, 2008 Chapter 4: Affected Environment December

49 Chapter 4 Affected Environment Figure 4-7 LAND USES WITHIN THE REGIONAL STUDY AREA Source: NOAB, 2012; City of Kenner, 2008 Chapter 4: Affected Environment December

50 Chapter 4 Affected Environment 4.4 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ACT SECTION 4(f) LANDS Department of Transportation Act, Section 4(f), provides protection for special properties, including significant publicly owned parks, recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, or any significant historic and archeological sites. Section 4(f) resources were coordinated and identified early in this EA development process in order to give full and fair consideration to avoid this protected resource. Initial coordination letters were distributed to Federal, state and local agencies for their input on this EA (see Appendix B). The identification of Section 4(f) resources within the Regional and Airport Study Areas was also determined through research conducted on the internet, previous local government documentation, and field investigations. There are no Section 4(f) resources within the Airport Study Area. As shown in Figure 4-8, there are five Section 4(f) resources are within the Regional Study Area: Susan Park Veterans Park Lions Playground Butch Duhe Park The Raziano House Four of the Section 4(f) resources are publicly-owned, public use recreational areas (Susan Park, Veterans Park, Lions Playground, and Butch Duhe Park) and one is a historical site (Raziano House). Susan Park is located in the northern portion of the Regional Study Area, approximately 1.5 miles from the existing terminal, and has a soccer field. Veterans Park is located in the eastern portion of the Regional Study Area off Williams Boulevard, approximately one mile northeast of the existing terminal. This park has seven pavilions available for rental for parties and/or get-togethers, as well as a walking path. Lions Playground, south of Veterans Park and approximately one mile northeast of the existing terminal, has approximately six soccer fields. Butch Duhe Park is also located in the eastern portion of the Regional Study Area approximately one-half mile from the existing terminal. This park has fields for softball, baseball, and soccer. Raziano House, located at 913 Minor Street, approximately 0.7 mile from the existing terminal, was added to the National Register of Historic Places in It is the only National Register-listed property within the Regional Study Area, and is, therefore, a Section 4(f) resource. Chapter 4: Affected Environment December

51 Chapter 4 Affected Environment Figure 4-8 SECTION 4(f) RESOURCES WITHIN THE REGIONAL STUDY AREA Source: NOAB, 2012; City of Kenner, 2008; National Park Service, 2013 Chapter 4: Affected Environment December

52 Chapter 4 Affected Environment 4.5 FARMLANDS According to the National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey, all land located within the Regional Study Area is nonprime urbanized land. Part 523 of the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) Manual, Section (B), states that land identified as urbanized areas are not subject to the provisions of the FPPA. Additionally, all of the 728-acre Airport Study Area is already developed and/or cleared, and is not used for agricultural purposes. As a result, this EA does not address this resource category further. 4.6 FISH, WILDLIFE, AND PLANTS This section describes coordination and investigation associated with fish, wildlife, and plant species within the Airport Study Area. Endangered is the classification provided to an animal or plant in danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The term threatened species means any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 8 The availability of any wildlife habitat within the Airport Study Area is limited, and the area surrounding the Airport to the north, south, and east is almost completely urbanized. Undeveloped lots, wooded rights of way, banks along canals and other drainage ways, and parklands and lawns provide the only potential wildlife habitat in the vicinity of the Airport on the Jefferson side of the Jefferson/St. Charles Parish boundary. These areas provide limited wildlife habitat potential because of their location within a broad urban setting. The urban environment does provide habitat to wildlife which have adapted to urban conditions, such as small mammals and songbirds. Potential habitat provided by urban parkland and lawns includes maintained grasses, trees, and/or shrubs associated with parks, and residential, commercial, or industrial lots. These areas provide low quality habitat for small mammals and birds Early Coordination with Agencies The State of Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF), Office of Wildlife letter dated January 10, 2013, stated that it is anticipated that the proposed activity will have minimal or no long-term adverse impacts to wetland functions; and no impacts to rare, threatened or endangered species, or critical habitats are anticipated, based on their review of the Airport Study Area in response to an agency coordination sent on December 17, 2012 (see Appendix B-2). In addition to the above information, the NOAB submitted the Biological Survey Report, under cover dated September 30, 2013, to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). A response was received from USFWS requesting that their on-line tool be used to determine whether there is presence of any species. Appendix B-3 provides the correspondence with the USFWS and the results of the on-line tool (see Attachment C to the letter to the USFWS from NOAB) Status of Listed Species and Habitat No previous surveys have indicated the presence of endangered or threatened plant or animal species within the boundaries of the Airport Study Area. However, despite the absence of positive survey data, certain species listed as threatened or endangered could be present if 8 USFWS, Glossary, available at: Accessed February 21, Chapter 4: Affected Environment December

53 Chapter 4 Affected Environment appropriate habitat for them is available, consequently a field investigation was conducted as described in Section Numerous state- and federally-listed species are known to occur in the Louisiana Coastal Zone, in which the entirety of Jefferson Parish is located. Table 4-3 and Table 4-4 provide these federally-listed endangered species and state listed species, respectively. Table 4-3 FEDERALLY ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND CANDIDATE SPECIES OCCURING IN JEFFERSON PARISH Common Name Scientific Name Type Classification Seasonal or Known West Indian Manatee Trichechus manatus Mammal Endangered Seasonal Piping Plover Charadrius melodus Bird Threatened Known Red Knot Calidris canutus Bird Candidate Seasonal Gulf Sturgeon Acipenser oxyrinchus Fish Threatened Known desotoi Pallid Sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus Fish Endangered Known Green Sea Turtle Chelonia mydas Reptile Threatened Known Hawksbill Sea Turtle Eretmochelys imbricata Reptile Endangered Known Kemp s Ridley Sea Turtle Lepidochelys kempii Reptile Endangered Known Leatherback Sea Turtle Dermochelys coriacea Reptile Endangered Known Loggerhead Sea Turtle Caretta caretta Reptile Threatened Known NOTE: No plant species are currently on the Federally endangered, threatened, and candidate species list for Jefferson Parish. Source: USFWS, 2013 Table 4-4 STATE OF LOUISIANA ENDANGERED SPECIES IN JEFFERSON PARISH Common Name Scientific Name Type Classification Gregg s Amaranth Amaranthus gregii Plant Rare Swamp Milkweed Asclepias incarnate Plant Imperiled Golden Canna Canna flaccida Plant Apparently secure Big Sandbur Cenchrus myosuroides Plant Critically imperiled Dune Sandbur Cenchrus tribuloides Plant Imperiled Floating Antler-fern Ceratopteris pteridoides Plant Imperiled Sand Dune Spurge Chamaesyce bombensis Plant Critically imperiled Canada Spike-sedge Eliocharis geniculate Plant Critically imperiled Three-angle Spikerush Eleocharis tricostata Plant Critically imperiled Small Flower Hemicarpha Lipocarpha micrantha Plant Historical occurrence Coastal Ground Cherry Physalis angustifolia Plant Critically imperiled Sand Rose-gentian Sabatia arenicola Plant Critically imperiled Gulf Bluestem Schizachyrium maritimum Plant Critically imperiled Sea Oats Uniola paticulata Plant Imperiled Snowy Plover Charadrius alexandrines Bird Critically imperiled Piping Plover Charadrius melodus Bird Imperiled Reddish Egret Egretta rufrescens Bird Imperiled Brown Pelican Pelecanus occidentalis Bird Imperiled Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bird Imperiled Pallid Sturgeon Scaphirhynchus albus Fish Critically imperiled Diamondback Terrapin Malaclemys terrapin Reptile Imperiled Eastern Glass Lizard Ophisaurus ventralis Reptile Rare Source: Louisiana Natural Heritage Program (LNHP), 2013 Chapter 4: Affected Environment December

54 Chapter 4 Affected Environment Natural Communities are composed of groups of plant and animal species that regularly or often occur in association with each other in certain landscapes or physical environments. In addition to plants and animals, the state of Louisiana considers the natural communities listed in Table 4-5 to be endangered. Table 4-5 STATE OF LOUISIANA ENDANGERED NATURAL COMMUNITIES IN JEFFERSON PARISH Source: LNHP, 2013 Name Barrier Island Live Oak Forest Batture Coastal Live Oak-Hackberry Forest Coastal Mangrove-Marsh Shrubland Classification Critically imperiled Apparently secure Critically imperiled Rare Field Investigation Field investigations were conducted on February 28, 2013 and August 2, 2013 for the observation and identification of existing fish, wildlife, and plants within the Airport Study Area and a Biological Survey Report was completed (see Appendix F). The majority of the Airport Study Area is a built environment and the majority of non-built areas are regularly maintained (i.e., mowing) which greatly minimizes wildlife habitat. Those areas not built or maintained consist of the following areas (areas of interest): A sixteen acre wooded area south of Lockheed Drive and wooded area between Lockheed drive and Canal Number 14. These areas provide potential habitat for birds, small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. Canal Number 14 (major drainage canal) and several smaller drainage canals and ditches adjacent to the wooded area described above. The canal and ditches could provide habitat for several bird and reptile species, as well as small mammals. No Federally-listed endangered species or state-designated rare or imperiled fauna or flora were observed during field investigations within the areas of interest. The areas contain no suitable habitat for any Federally-listed endangered species occurring in Jefferson Parish, including migrants and seasonal visitors, and these species would not be expected to occur within the Airport Study Area at any time of year. The areas of interest likewise contain no suitable habitat for any state-designated rare or imperiled animal species occurring in Jefferson Parish. These species would not be expected to occur within the Airport Study Area at any time of year. It is possible that migratory birds such as the piping plover, red knot, snowy plover, and reddish egret could occur within the Airport Study Area while transient, or that the Airport Study Area could lie within the home range of bald eagles that are primarily active elsewhere. However, the Airport Study Area neither provides suitable food resources nor is otherwise attractive to any of these species, and it is not expected there would be more than unusual or occasional occurrences of these species within the Airport Study Area. The State of Louisiana lists rare and imperiled plants in Jefferson Parish, and a number of these species have a potential to occur within the Airport Study Area. These plants are swamp milkweed, golden canna, floating antler-fern, and three-angle spikerush. It is expected that Chapter 4: Affected Environment December

55 Chapter 4 Affected Environment these wetland perennials, which occur in freshwater swamps, marshes, and ditches, would be evident during the summer growing season if they occurred within the areas where field investigations were conducted. None of these species were observed during field investigations conducted in August FLOODPLAINS The Greater New Orleans area, including the Regional Study Area, is located in a natural floodplain. To protect against floods, the city is surrounded by a system of levees, walls, gates and pump stations, known as the Hurricane and Storm Damage Risk Reduction System (HSDRRS). Levee failures caused by hurricane storm surge and waves during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005 caused major flood devastation in New Orleans. As a result, the U.S. Congress allocated $14.5 billion to the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to repair and improve the flood protection system in New Orleans. USACE established the Interagency Performance Evaluation Taskforce (IPET), which includes more than 150 nationally-recognized experts from over 50 different government, university, and private sector organizations. IPET conducted an engineering investigation to understand what happened during Hurricane Katrina and how to repair and rebuild the flood protection system to protect against the 100-year storm surge. In coordination with USACE, local communities, and levee boards, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is conducting a large study effort to update the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for the Greater New Orleans area. These updates will reflect the rehabilitation efforts of the USACE and other drainage projects that have been constructed throughout the area. FEMA is using the results from the IPET investigation as a basis for the engineering analysis and incorporating updated elevation data to more accurately assess the actual flood hazard risk. The study effort is known as the Risk Mapping, Assessment, and Planning (Risk MAP) program. FEMA has contracted Risk Assessment, Mapping, and Planning Partners (RAMPP), a joint venture of Dewberry, URS, and ESP, to perform the floodplain modeling and mapping for FEMA Region VI, which includes Louisiana. The initial floodplain modeling study has been performed and the preliminary Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRMs) for Jefferson Parish were released to the public in late 2012 via an interactive mapping website. Once the maps are published in the Federal Register, a public comment period, known as the final appeal and protest period, will be held and comments will be reviewed for incorporation prior to issuing final mapping for this study effort. Once a Letter of Final Determination is issued, a six-month compliance period will allow local communities to update their floodplain management regulations. Following the six-month compliance period, the DFIRMs are deemed effective and the updated maps will be used to rate flood insurance. Preliminary DFIRMs for Jefferson Parish are expected to be effective in Fall of For flood insurance rating purposes, Jefferson Parish is using the current effective FIRMs dated March 23, For building and permitting, Jefferson Parish East Bank is using the Preliminary DFIRM panels released by FEMA in The proposed model update would result in changes, listed below, to the floodplain at the Airport. Chapter 4: Affected Environment December

56 Chapter 4 Affected Environment Compared to the Effective FIRM data, Preliminary DFIRM results indicate that the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) is generally larger on the south side of Runway and smaller on the north side of Runway In the Effective FIRM, base flood elevations (BFEs) do not exist on the south side of the Airport between Runway and Airline Drive. The Preliminary DFIRM identifies BFEs that range from 0 to 1 on the south side of the Airport. In the Effective FIRM, BFEs are -3.5 on the north side of the Airport. The Preliminary DFIRM identifies BFEs that range from -3 to -4 on the north side of the Airport. Although Jefferson Parish has not yet adopted the 2012 Preliminary DFIRMs, it is very likely that the 2012 Preliminary DFIRMs will be used for regulatory purposes for the proposed project. 4.8 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, POLLUTION PREVENTION, AND SOLID WASTE Various activities at the Airport could have the potential to release hazardous materials or solid waste into the Airport Study Area environment. The impact area for hazardous materials and solid waste consists of the area that would be directly affected by construction and operation of the reasonable alternatives as well as existing activities. Potential impacts include, but are not limited to: aircraft refueling; aircraft maintenance; aircraft washing; firefighting aircraft; vehicle maintenance; chemicals used in field maintenance; roadway use; temporary generation of solid waste due to demolition and construction; waste generation/disposal; and historic leaks and spills. The Airport has a current Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which is maintained and regularly updated. This SWPPP includes all required quarterly facility inspection reports, annual environmental training logs, quarterly visual inspection logs, and correspondence for the Airport and approximately 25 tenants, most of which are co-permitees. The Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan (SPCC) for the Airport and all tenants is maintained within the SWPPP. The Airport s fuel storage facility, located to the west of the terminal complex, consists of two 240,000-gallon tanks that store Jet-A fuel and a filling rack. The Motiva storage facility, located on the Airport, directly supplies fuels to tanker trucks. Fuel is transported to the aircraft by Aircraft Services International filling trucks. A review of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency documentation indicates that there are no sites located within the Airport Study Area listed or under consideration on the National Priorities List. 9 Based on The Banks Regulatory Database Report conducted in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials Standard , there are no known 9 EPA, Final National Priorities List (NPL) Sites by State, available at: Accessed on November 1, Chapter 4: Affected Environment December

57 Chapter 4 Affected Environment hazardous environmental conditions present within the boundaries of the Airport. See Table 4-6 for the database summary of sites in the Airport vicinity that are identified in the Database Report and Appendix L for the location of these sites. Table 4-6 FEDERAL AND STATE HAZARDOUS MATERIAL DATABASE SUMMARY ASTM Source Mapped Unmapped Total Description CERCLIS NFRAP Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) sites designated 'No Further Remedial Action Planned' no further action required (NFRAP) have been removed from CERCLIS. NFRAP sites may be sites where, following an initial investigation, no contamination was found, contamination was removed quickly without the site being placed on the National Priority List (NPL), or the contamination was not serious enough to require Federal Superfund action or NPL consideration. RCRA CORRACTS (RCRA COR) RCRA non-corracts TSD (RCRA TSD) RCRA Generators (RCRA GEN) These sites are registered hazardous waste generators or handlers that fall under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and subject to corrective action activity This database lists all treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous material sites that fall under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). All hazardous waste TSD facilities are required to notify EPA of their existence The EPA regulates all Hazardous Waste Generators subject to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). They are classified by the quantity of hazardous waste generated. A Small Quantity Generator (SQG) generates between 100kg and 1,000 kg of waste per month. A Large Quantity Generator (LQG) generates over 1,000 kg of waste per month. A Conditionally Exempt SQG (CEG) generates less than 100 kg of waste per month. ERNS List (ERNS) ERNS is a national database used to store information on unauthorized releases of oil and hazardous substances that have been reported to the National Response Center since The NRC is the sole federal point of contact for reporting oil and chemical spills. Prior to 2001 this information was maintained by the EPA. State/Tribal Equivalent (ST NPL) State/Tribal Leaking Storage Tank (LPST) State/Tribal Storage Tank (PST) Source: Banks Environmental Data, This database contains 2 different types of records of hazardous properties in Louisiana that are considered or have already been through remediation. A confirmed status denotes that assessments have been performed and a determination made that (1) hazardous waste or substances are present at the site and (2) these sites are under the jurisdiction of the Inactive and Abandoned Sites regulations. A potential status is an indicator that sites are either waiting to be assessed or the assessment (investigation) is in progress This database is a list of all known leaking underground storage tanks as registered with the Remediation Services Division of the LDEQ. The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) migrated all environmental data to a new system in The old system consisted of many different databases with different formats to collect various types of data. The new system is now the primary tool used to track, collect and pull reports from DEQ data. After the migration took place the old database was locked and is no longer accessible. Prior to 1999 LDEQ reported LUSTs as individual instances of actual leaks. The new database reports LUSTs as tanks currently in remediation. Once a facility leak is evaluated and the remediation is closed, the site is no longer considered a LUST. However, Banks will continue to report these sites as a LUST in the Regulatory Report This database is a list of all known underground and aboveground storage tanks registered with the Remediation Services Division of the LDEQ. Chapter 4: Affected Environment December

58 Chapter 4 Affected Environment The closest landfills to the Airport Study Area are located approximately five miles west of the Airport Study Area. They include River Birch Inc., Jefferson Parish Landfill, and Kelven Sanitary Landfill located off U.S. Highway 90. Each of these landfills has a useful capacity of up to 30 years. 4.9 HISTORIC, ARCHEOLOGICAL, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES The Area of Potential Effect (APE) was determined to be co-extensive with the Regional Study Area. According to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), no historic sites are located within the Airport Study Area. As discussed more fully in Section 5.9, the FAA has determined, pending the completion of consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), that there are no sites eligible for listing on the NRHP within the Airport Study Area. The Raziano House, which is 0.7 miles southeast of the existing terminal building, is the only property on or eligible for listing on the NRHP that is in the Regional Study Area. Since no cultural resource surveys have been conducted within the Airport Study Area, no historic sites have been identified. Therefore, an archaeological resource survey 10 was conducted for areas within the Airport Study Area where ground disturbance would occur (see Appendix C). No archaeological resources were identified as part of the survey. The FAA consulted with the SHPO on the appropriateness of the APE and on FAA s preliminary finding that implementation of the sponsor s proposed action (the Northside Alternative) will have no significant effect to historic, archeological and cultural resources (see Appendix B-8). The SHPO concurred with the FAA s finding (see Appendix B-8) LIGHT EMISSIONS AND VISUAL IMPACTS Current Airport facilities are illuminated by various types of landside lighting for buildings, access roadways, apron areas, and automobile parking areas. The Regional Study Area encompasses areas adjacent to the Airport. These areas are zoned primarily for light and heavy industrial facilities, commercial uses, and open public land uses. The residential neighborhood in Kenner that is south of Veterans Memorial Boulevard and north of Canal Number 14 is the closest residential area to the reasonable build alternatives. The nearby residential areas are currently obstructed from the Airport light emissions due to vegetative and structural buffers (i.e., trees, shrubs, canal, and commercial and industrial buildings). The landforms surrounding the Airport are at a similar elevation as the Airport. There is no dramatic height differential in landforms between the residential neighborhoods north of the Airport and the Airport NATURAL RESOURCES, ENERGY SUPPLY, AND SUSTAINABLE DESIGN Off-site electrical power is necessary to keep the Airport operational and safe. Airport lighting within the Airport Study Area consists of airfield navigational aids, runway taxiway edge lighting, signage, landside lighting for buildings, access roadways, apron areas, and automobile parking areas. The local utility company, Entergy Louisiana LLC, is responsible for delivering electricity to the Airport through two distribution feeder circuit units at the service main, which is located under the southeast corner of the existing terminal building. 10 Earth Search, Inc., Negative Findings Report for the Phase I Survey of the Proposed Long-Term Development Program at the, Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, April Chapter 4: Affected Environment December

59 Chapter 4 Affected Environment Airport personnel and tenants regularly use consumable materials to maintain various airside and landside facilities and services. Those materials may include asphalt, concrete, aggregate for sub-base materials, and various metals associated with such maintenance. The existing terminal, as it operates today, is considered inefficient and unsustainable due to the following reasons: infrastructure, including mechanical systems, structural systems, passenger moving conveyance systems, and security systems, are beyond its useful life resulting in ongoing maintenance and repair; the aging infrastructure uses more energy than modern systems; and the existing number of gates and concourses exceeds current and future demand resulting in unnecessary maintenance of underutilized space NOISE This section discusses the existing noise environment in the Regional Study Area in terms of aircraft noise and surface traffic noise Aircraft-Related Noise The Day Night Average Sound Level (DNL) metric is the standard metric used by FAA to evaluate cumulative noise effects on people due to aviation activities. Residential areas are considered compatible with aviation at levels below the DNL of 65 decibels (db). The most recent noise and land use compatibility study for the Airport was completed in This study, which followed the guidelines provided in Part 150 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR), developed noise contours associated with aircraft operations at the Airport and noted the following impacts for the contours with noise levels at or above DNL 65: DNL dwelling units and 1 church DNL dwelling units, 2 churches and 3 schools DNL ,550 dwelling units, 5 churches, 5 schools and a library and a museum. Following extensive review by all parties of interest, including the NOAB, the FAA, the surrounding communities, the Air Transport Association (ATA) and local residents, eight noise abatement measures and 13 noise mitigation measures were recommended to be implemented at the Airport and its environs as part of its voluntary program. On October 1, 1987, the City of Kenner City Council passed a resolution approving the Noise Compatibility Program and on October 19, 1987, a similar action was taken by the NOAB and the recommendations were implemented Surface Traffic-Related Noise The Federal Highway Administration s (FHWA s) computer model, the Traffic Noise Model (TNM) Version 2.5, was used to compute traffic noise levels at 149 noise sensitive sites adjacent to two roadways north of the Airport that are located within the Regional Study Area (Veterans Memorial Boulevard and Aberdeen Street). The noise sensitive land use and the locations of each of these sites is discussed and presented in Section Chapter 4: Affected Environment December

60 Chapter 4 Affected Environment The existing traffic volumes and roadway geometry were modeled in the TNM. For the existing condition, the resulting traffic sound level at the modeled noise-sensitive sites (also referred to as receptors) ranges from 35.1 to 60.4 decibels on the A -weighted scale (db(a)). This computer modeled db range represents an equivalent continuous sound level over a period of one hour (Leq 1h ). Given the range of Leq(h) values, in particular the lower end of this range, it was determined that ambient environmental noise levels in the community are likely higher than those computed by the TNM. To account for this likelihood, data from the EPA on general ambient noise levels in various environments was used. 11 For the area encompassed in this analysis, a conservative estimate for ambient noise for a quiet suburban location was determined at 44 db(a). This level was used as a floor for the TNM results (any modeled Leq(h) lower than 44 db(a)) was replaced with this level SOCIOECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, CHILDREN S HEALTH AND SAFETY RISKS This section discusses existing traffic patterns and capacity, demographics, and children health and safety risks in the Regional Study Area Surface Traffic Existing traffic volume data was collected at the following critical intersections to document existing traffic volume levels in the area and to form the basis for subsequent analysis: Airline Drive at Hollandey Street; Airline Drive at Airport Access Road; Airline Drive at Airport Road Airline Drive at Airport Access Road/Jerome Glazer Drive; Veterans Memorial Boulevard at Williams Drive; Veterans Memorial Boulevard at Airport Access Road; Veterans Memorial Boulevard at Loyola Drive Bainbridge Street at Veterans Memorial Boulevard Jerome S Glazer / Airport Access Road at Airport Access Road; and Interstate 10 (I-10) Service Roads at Loyola Drive. Weekday peak period traffic turning movement and pedestrian counts were conducted at the study intersections on typical weekdays during November The data was collected for two hours during each of the morning and evening peak periods (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM). Directional 24-hour counts were also collected on I-10, Veterans Memorial Boulevard, and Airline Drive. This data was used to assist in determining traffic variation and directional distribution. The 24-hour count data including an hourly breakdown by direction is included in the Appendix H. 11 Cavanaugh, William and Tocci, G. Environmental Noise: The Invisible Pollutant. USC Institute of Public Affairs, E2SC Volume 1 Number 1, Fall Chapter 4: Affected Environment December

61 Chapter 4 Affected Environment Intersection Analysis Methodology The study intersections were analyzed using Traffic Software Integrated System Corridor Simulation (TSIS- CORSIM), which is FHWA software to model traffic simulation for signal systems, freeway systems, or combined signal and freeway systems. Operations/capacity analyses were conducted for the AM and PM peak hours for each analysis scenario (existing and future conditions). Level of Service (LOS) is a letter designation that describes the range of operating conditions on a particular type of facility. The Highway Capacity Manual 2010 describes level of service as a, quality measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, generally in terms of such service measures as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, and comfort and convenience. Six levels of service are defined for capacity analysis. Letters designate each level, from LOS A to LOS F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F the worst. Table 4-7 shows the LOS criteria for signalized intersections. The LOS criteria are defined as a measure of control delay, which is the average delay, measured in seconds per vehicle, experienced by motorists at an intersection. Table 4-7 LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level of Service Interpretation Delay (sec/veh) A Uncongested operations and progression is extremely favorable; most vehicles arrive during the green phase and do not stop at all. 10 B Uncongested operations and represents good progression; some vehicles may be stopped during the red phase. >10 and 20 C Light congestion and fair progression; occasional backups on critical approaches. >20 and 35 D Congestion on critical approaches is more noticeable. Vehicles are required to wait through more than one cycle during short peaks. No long queues are formed. E Severe congestion with poor progression; some long queues are formed on critical approaches. Blockages of intersection may occur if traffic signal does not provide for protected turning movements. >35 and 55 >55 and 80 F Total breakdown with stop-and-go operations. >80 Source: Highway Capacity Manual Chapter 4: Affected Environment December

62 Chapter 4 Affected Environment Existing Conditions Traffic Operations Analysis Table 4-8 summarizes the existing levels of service (LOS) for the study intersections identified as critical locations. The table presents LOS and delay for the overall intersection and also by approach movement for weekday morning and evening peak hours. As shown in Table 4-8, with the exception of specific approaches to the intersections of Veterans Memorial Boulevard at Williams Boulevard and Airline Drive at Airport Road (AM peak only), all study locations are operating at LOS D or better with the majority operating at LOS C or better. The Veterans Memorial Boulevard / Williams Boulevard intersection overall operates at LOS D during the PM peak hour but LOS C during the AM peak. LOS D is generally considered acceptable in urban areas during peak traffic flow periods Demographics As part of Executive Order 12898, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued guidance for each Federal Agency to make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and lowincome populations. 12 In order to determine potential impacts, the Regional Study Area, City of Kenner, Jefferson Parish, St. Charles Parish, the City of New Orleans, the New Orleans Metairie Bogalusa Combined Statistical Area (CSA), and the State of Louisiana were examined. Based on the data presented below, the Regional Study Area meets the threshold for Environmental Justice designation due to both ethnicity and income-level. Table 4-9 summarizes the population trends between 2000 and 2010 in the Regional Study Area and at the city, parish, and state level. Also included in the summary is the population trend of the New Orleans Metairie Bogalusa CSA, which is made up of eight parishes in southeastern Louisiana. This area consists of the New Orleans Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) and the Bogalusa MSA. In 2000, the CSA had a population of 1,360,436 people. The population declined to 1,214,932 people in 2010, making it the CSA with the largest percentage decline (-10.4 percent) in the United States. The population loss in this area is due largely to the severe impacts of Hurricane Katrina in The political jurisdictions surrounding the Regional Study Area incurred a population decline between 2000 and 2010, except for St. Charles Parish and to a lesser extent the State of Louisiana. The Regional Study Area population declined just under 10 percent between 2000 and This decline is also attributable to Hurricane Katrina. The 10-percent housing vacancy rate in the Regional Study Area is closely aligned to the population decline between 2000 and 2010, which leads to the conclusion that housing vacancy rates correlate with the reduced population and impacts of Hurricane Katrina. Overall, the Regional Study Area population and housing statistics fall in the middle range, when compared to the surrounding political jurisdictions. 12 USEPA, Environmental Justice Considerations in the NEPA Process, available at: Accessed September 26, Chapter 4: Affected Environment December

63 Chapter 4 Affected Environment Table 4-8 CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS Time Period Measure Overall Jerome Glazer Blvd / Airport Access Rd Airport Access Road Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service B - B A Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service B A C Delay (sec/veh) Time Period Measure Overall Airline Drive Airport Access Road Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service A A A B B Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service B B A B B Delay (sec/veh) Time Period Measure Overall Airline Drive Airport Road Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service B D E A C B A C C A B B Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service C C C B C C A C C A B B Delay (sec/veh) Chapter 4: Affected Environment December

64 Chapter 4 Affected Environment Table 4-8 (Continued) CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS Time Period Measure Overall Airline Drive Hollandey Street Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service A C B B B B A Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service B C C B A C A Delay (sec/veh) Time Period Measure Overall Williams Boulevard Veterans Memorial Boulevard Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service C C C A C C B D C C D E C Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service D D C A E E B D C C D E D Delay (sec/veh) Time Period Measure Overall Airport Access Road Veterans Memorial Boulevard Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service A B A B A A Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service B B B C C B Delay (sec/veh) Chapter 4: Affected Environment December

65 Chapter 4 Affected Environment Table 4-8 (Continued) CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS Time Period Measure Overall Loyola Drive Veterans Memorial Boulevard Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service B B B A C C C A B A Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service C D C B C C D A B A Delay (sec/veh) Time Period Measure Overall Loyola Drive I 10 Westbound Service Road Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service B B B B A C A B Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service B B C B A D C C Delay (sec/veh) Time Period Measure Overall Loyola Drive I 10 Eastbound Service Road Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service C C C C B C A B Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service C C D D B D D B Delay (sec/veh) Chapter 4: Affected Environment December

66 Chapter 4 Affected Environment Table 4-8 (Continued) CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS Time Period Measure Overall Bainbridge Street Veterans Memorial Boulevard Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service B B A B B B A Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service B B A B A B A Delay (sec/veh) Source: Urban Systems, 2013 Location Table 4-9 POPULATION AND HOUSING DATA ( ) Total Population Population Change ( ) Area (square miles) Persons Per Square Mile Total Housing Units Vacant Housing Units (% of Total) Regional Study 7, % , , % Area/a/ City of Kenner 66, % , , % Jefferson Parish 432, % , , % St. Charles Parish 52, % , % City of New Orleans 343, % , , % CSA 1,214, % 8, , % Louisiana 4,533, % 43, ,964, % /a/ Census Tracts 206, 210, 211, 212, and 9800 are used to determine Regional Study Area, although several tracts have a portion of land outside the boundary. Source: 2000 and 2010 US Census SF1 and QuickFacts Table 4-10 summarizes income, poverty, and employment levels in the Regional Study Area and at the city, parish, CSA, and state level. In 2010, the City of Kenner, Jefferson Parish, and St. Charles Parish had median household income levels higher than the State of Louisiana, while the City of New Orleans and the Regional Study Area were below the State level at $37,000 and $33,000 respectively. City and Parish statistical areas had slightly higher per capita incomes than the State. Only the Regional Study Area had a per capita income significantly lower than the State. In fact, the Regional Study Area has the lowest median household income when compared to regional political and statistical jurisdictions. Chapter 4: Affected Environment December

67 Chapter 4 Affected Environment The Regional Study Area also has one of the highest poverty levels and the highest unemployment rate compared to regional political and statistical areas. The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) considers a family of four having an annual income of $23,050 or less to be at the poverty level or low income. Only a few locations east and west of the Regional Study Area have median household income levels above the poverty level. Table 4-10 also summarizes the income, percentage below poverty level, and employment information within the Regional Study Area and at the city, parish, CSA, and state level. Location Regional Study Area City of Kenner Jefferson Parish St. Charles Parish City of New Orleans Table 4-10 INCOME, POVERTY, EMPLOYMENT, AND ETHNICITY DATA (2010) Median Household Income Per Capita Income Percent of Population in Poverty Population in Labor Force Unemployment Rate Percent of Minority (non-white) Population $33,064 $15, % 4, % 63.9% $48,567 $24, % 36, % 38.4% $48,175 $25, % 225, % 37.1% $60,961 $25, % 26, % 30.8% $37,468 $24, % 150, % 67.0% CSA $46,902 $25, % 580, % 41.4% Louisiana $43,445 $23, % 2,133, % 37.4% Source: U.S. Census American Community Survey (ACS) Estimates ending In comparison to the regional political jurisdictions and statistical areas, the Regional Study Area has a significantly large minority population at 64 percent. Thus, the majority of the Regional Study Area population consists of minorities, which also occurs in the City of New Orleans. More importantly, high concentrations (over 50 percent) of the minorities live in the neighborhoods immediately north of the Airport (Bainbridge, Crest View, Veterans Heights, and Susan Park). In comparison to the region, the minority population is less than 40 percent in the City of Kenner, Jefferson, and St. Charles Parishes, the CSA, and the State of Louisiana. Approximately 23 percent of the minority families in the Regional Study Area are living below the poverty level, which is slightly more than the City of New Orleans. However, that percentage is significantly greater than the remaining areas of reference. Most of these low income families are located in the neighborhoods immediately north of the Airport. Chapter 4: Affected Environment December

68 Chapter 4 Affected Environment Children s Environmental Health and Safety The closest school to the Regional Study Area is Our Lady of Perpetual Help Catholic School, located less than 0.7 miles southeast of the existing Airport terminal at 531 Williams Boulevard. The closest daycare facility is Carousel Day Care and Learning, located 0.3 mile east of Airport Road. It is outside the Regional Study Area. Lion s Playground is the closest recreational facility to the Regional Study Area. It is located between Airport Road and Williams Boulevard WATER QUALITY The NOAB does not perform independent treatment of stormwater runoff. The Airport is integrated into the Jefferson Parish and City of Kenner drainage system (or Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4)). Due to the Parish s topography and the region s high precipitation levels, including periodic storm events, flood control requires an intricate, complex system of levees, floodwalls, canals and drainage pump stations. All stormwater runoff in Jefferson Parish, including the Airport s, is conveyed by gravity through a system of canals and subsurface drainage lines into the suction bays of various pump stations (see Figure 4-9 for a graphic depiction of the current hydrological basin delineation at the Airport). The water is then pumped into surrounding waterbodies outside the flood protection system. The Jefferson Parish Drainage Department is responsible for maintaining and improving the drainage infrastructure on and off the Airport. Because a substantial amount of the Airport property has impervious surfaces, precipitation falling onto runways, ramp areas, and buildings flows through drainage ditches and culverts to their stormwater collection system. In order to address the incremental runoff from the Airport, the NOAB assessed possible solutions. A possible solution would be the installation of a 288 cubic feet per second (cfs) drainage pump station within the Airport property, which would discharge into the West Return Canal to the west. Construction would also include a discharge basin on the flood side of the flood wall, removal/relocation of a section of the floodwall access road, removal/replacement of a section of the Perimeter Road, and building a temporary singlelane Perimeter Road. See Figure 4-10 for a graphical depiction of these potential improvements. These improvements, which are not approved and have not been scheduled for construction, are presented in Appendix I and have been discussed with the City of Kenner (see Appendix B-6). Aircraft washing, equipment cleaning, rental car washing, oil and fuel spills, and maintenance activities are among the activities that can contaminate stormwater and that can runoff into the drainage system if appropriate measures are not taken to prevent contamination. At many airports, water pollution problems can be intensified during winter when deicing/anti-icing compounds (such as ethylene glycol and propylene glycol) are used to remove ice and snow from aircraft and runways. Due to the temperate climate and fleet mix, deicing runoff is not a significant source of pollution at the Airport. The Duncan Canal and other Jefferson Parish drainage canals in the Airport area have outfalls to Lake Pontchartrain are on Louisiana s impaired waters list (see Table 4-11) United States District Court Decree, Civil Action Number , available at: Accessed March 10, Chapter 4: Affected Environment December

69 Chapter 4 Affected Environment Figure 4-9 CURRENT HYDROLOGIC BASIN DELINEATION AT THE AIRPORT Source: MSY Airport Drainage Report Executive Summary, 2013 The NOAB implements a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which is reviewed annually. The SWPPP establishes policies and procedures for tenant compliance to prevent or reduce discharges into adjacent waterways. Tenants also commit to help prevent pollution. The SWPPP requires periodic airport-wide site analyses and updating of inventories of facilities and tenants to verify the Airport s staff and tenants meet all aspects of the SWPPP. Jefferson Parish and, therefore, the Airport, do not overlie any of the State s sole source aquifer systems. Those systems, the Chicot Aquifer System and the Southern Hills Aquifer System, occur in southwestern Louisiana and in the Northshore area of southeastern Louisiana and southwestern Mississippi, respectively, well beyond the Airport and Regional Study Areas. Chapter 4: Affected Environment December

70 Chapter 4 Affected Environment Figure 4-10 DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS AT THE AIRPORT Source: MSY Airport Drainage Report Executive Summary, 2013 Table 4-11 IMPERILED AND THREATENED WATERWAYS IN THE REGIONAL STUDY AREA Waterway From source at Type Pollutants Duncan Canal (Parish Line Canal) Kenner Corporation limits to Lake Pontchartrain Estuarine Oil & Grease, Organic enrichment/low DO, Pathogen indicators Lake Pontchartrain Drainage Canals Jefferson and Orleans Parishes Estuarine Nutrients, Oil & Grease, Organic enrichment/low DO, Pathogen indicators Source: NOAB, 2013 Chapter 4: Affected Environment December

71 Chapter 4 Affected Environment 4.15 WETLANDS Wetlands have three necessary characteristics which are discussed in more detail in the section as noted below: Water: presence of water at or near the ground surface for a part of the year; Hydrophytic Plants: a preponderance of plants adapted to wet conditions; and Hydric Soils: soil developed under wet conditions. Palustrine wetlands include all non-tidal wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses or lichens. For the present evaluation, the following classes of palustrine wetlands are relevant: Scrub-shrub Wetlands are characterized by low, woody vegetation and may include forested wetlands that have been harvested and are in the process of regeneration to forest. o In the Broad-leaved Deciduous subclass of scrub-shrub wetlands in the Palustrine System, typical dominance types include willows (Salix spp.) and other young trees. Emergent Wetlands are characterized by erect, rooted, herbaceous hydrophytes, excluding mosses and lichens. This vegetation is present for most of the growing season in most years. These wetlands are usually dominated by perennial plants. o The Persistent Emergent Wetland subclass are wetlands dominated by species that normally remain standing at least until the beginning of the next growing season Wetland Assessment The National Wetland Inventory (NWI) of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) classifies the entirety of the Airport as urban land. However, a wetland assessment was conducted to evaluate potential wetlands areas in the Airport Study Area for two different areas of interest noted during the initial field visit (see Figure 4-11). Appendix D provides a detailed report outlining the field investigation Wooded Tract in Property Map Area 5 In Property Map Area 5 (see Figure 4-11), a Wooded Tract exists south of Lockheed Drive. The Wooded Tract encompasses approximately 21.5 acres of potential wetland habitat as shown on Figure This figure also illustrates the test unit sites for Area 5. According to the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the entirety of Property Map Area 5 lies within an area of Westwego clay soil Drainage Ditch in Property Map Area 8 In Property Map Area 8, a drainage ditch subsystem was examined on February 28, These drainage features are part of the Jefferson Parish drainage system and run east-west from a point south of the East Air Cargo Apron, running south of the Middle Access Road, Chapter 4: Affected Environment December

72 Chapter 4 Affected Environment Figure 4-11 AREAS OF INTEREST Source: Gaea, 2013 Figure 4-12 POTENTIAL WETLAND AREA 5 AND TEST UNIT SITES Source: Gaea, 2013 Chapter 4: Affected Environment December

73 Chapter 4 Affected Environment turning perpendicularly toward the north at a point north of the fuel tank farm, crossing under the alignment of the Middle Access Road, and then turning toward the west at a point south of the General Aviation Apron (and Taxiway E). A spur of the ditch diverges toward the southeast at a point south of the East Air Cargo Apron, and truncates at the United States Postal Service (USPS) Access Road. The ditch continues toward the west, but the current Airport Study Area boundary is the eastern edge of Ramp 7 of the General Aviation Apron. These drainage ditches drain toward the west and north, ultimately draining to Canal No. 14 through a subterranean feature that runs perpendicularly to and underneath Runway and associated taxiways, draining into Canal No. 17 of the Jefferson Parish/City of Kenner drainage system. This Area has been artificially drained and managed since at least the 1870s, first for agriculture and then, in the 1940s, for Airport use. The ditches in this Area are regularly maintained by Jefferson Parish, including clearing and bank vegetation cutting and removal. During the site visit, some wetland vegetation species were present in the ditches, and common aquatic turtle species were observed in the wider portion of the ditch south of the Middle Access Road. The Drainage Ditch in Property Map Area 8 is not deemed to serve a wetland function because the ditch is regularly maintained by clearing and vegetation management Wetland Delineation The wetland assessment investigations indicate the three necessary wetland characteristics occur at all of the test unit locations in both the Wooded Tract and the Drainage Ditch/Detention Pond in Area 5 (see Table 4-12). A formal wetland delineation from the USACE will be needed to obtain a jurisdictional determination (JD) for Area 5. The NOAB is consulting with the USACE and coordinating the determination (see Appendix B-10). Table 4-12 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FORMAL WETLAND DELINEATION Area of Interest Initial Assessment Delineation recommendation Wooded Tract, Property Map Area 5 Partial Scrub-Shrub Wetland Formal delineation recommended Drainage Ditch/Detention Pond, Property Map Area 5 Partial Scrub-Shrub Wetland; Partial Emergent wetland Formal delineation recommended Drainage Ditch, Property Map Area 8 Not wetland Delineation not recommended Source: Gaea, WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS Analysis of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System (WSRS) and the National Rivers Inventory (NRI) shows there are no protected rivers within the Airport Study Area or the Regional Study Area. The closest WSRS river segment to the Airport is Black Creek in Mississippi. Black Creek is approximately 100 miles northeast of the Regional Study Area. The closest NRI river segment is the Bogue Chitto River, located in St. Tammany Parish, approximately 70 miles north of the Regional Study Area. Those locations are well beyond the one-quarter mile distance requiring analysis of effects Title 16 USC, Section 1275.(d). The use the ¼-mile standard, as noted in Section 1275(d) for study rivers, is the limit of impact analysis for both WSRS and NRI rivers. This ensures the EA properly assess potential impacts on these important river reaches. Chapter 4: Affected Environment December

74 Chapter 4 Affected Environment 4.17 PAST, PRESENT, AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE PROJECTS IN THE AIRPORT VICINITY Projects described below only include those which had or have the potential to affect the environmental resource categories analyzed in this EA (e.g., the Airport Geographic Information Systems (GIS) project or interior terminal improvements are not included in this cumulative impacts analysis) Past Actions The following sections describe past action(s) that have occurred on- and off-airport property between 2007 and On-airport actions: The NOAB reported the following past actions: 15 Roof replacement: The roofs of Concourses A, B, C, and D, main terminal, and west terminal were replaced. Hurricane repairs: Hurricane repairs were made to the terminal, concourses, transportation and parking facilities, roofs, exteriors, interiors, Building 258 (airline cargo building), and Building 300 (perishable goods center). Exterior terminal improvements: Phase 1 consisted of improvements to the loop road. Phase 2 consisted of modernizing the exterior features of the terminal building (new widows and entrances, replacement of the façade, and expansion of inner and outer roadway curbs). Expansion of Concourse D: Six gates were added to Concourse D. New Airfield Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) facility: The new ARFF facility was constructed west of the existing facility and included demolishing the DHL hangar and apron. Improvements to the North Perimeter Road: The North Perimeter Road was rehabilitated and realigned. The project also included re-contouring nearby ditches. New loading bridges: Seventeen aircraft loading bridges were replaced. Construction of a Consolidated Rent-A-Car (CONRAC) garage: The CONRAC garage includes a customer service building, a ready-return parking garage, new utility building and associated service areas for the rental car companies to maintain their vehicles. The facility also includes concessions and is connected to the Terminal via covered walkways. New Airfield Lighting Vault: The new Airfield Lighting Vault serves the north side of the airfield, east of the existing General Aviation apron area. Levee improvements: The USACE constructed a series of levee sections on the west end of the airfield. The work included re-aligning the West Return Flood Wall, constructing the Levee around the west end of Runway 10/28, and raising the Canadian National Railroad Gate. Rehabilitation of the terminal apron: Phase 2 of the Terminal Apron Rehabilitation Project included replacing portions of the air carrier apron surrounding Concourse "B, specifically the pavement between Concourses "B and "C, including the aircraft gates. 15, Capital Improvement Projects, available at: Accessed February Chapter 4: Affected Environment December

75 Chapter 4 Affected Environment Phase 4 interior terminal improvements: This project included a number of aesthetic upgrades including improvements to walls, ceilings, additional lighting, column covers, speakers, carpet replacement, FFE (fixtures, furnishings, and equipment), and replacing escalators and trash receptacles. Runway 6/24 Conversion Project: This project converted existing Runway 6/24 to Taxiway D. This included pavement rehabilitation, new lighting, and pavement markings. Off-Airport Projects: According to the City of Kenner, the following projects have been completed: Tree-planting: Trees were planted along portions of Loyola Drive as a part of a tree planting project. 16 Hotel conversion: The former Holiday Inn at the intersection of Veterans and Williams Boulevard was upgraded to a Crowne-Plaza Hotel. 17 Asphalt overlays: Asphalt overlays were completed at the intersection of Connecticut Avenue and 22nd Street. 18 Concrete panel replacement: Panels along the 3300 block of Florida Avenue were replaced. 19 Sidewalk resurfacing: The Veterans Park sidewalk was resurfaced. 20 Roadway improvements: Improvements were made to the Loyola Avenue / Interstate 10 intersection Present Actions On-Airport Projects: The NOAB reports the following projects at the Airport are under construction 22. Perimeter security fence replacement (in construction): Complete replacement of the perimeter security fence including all gates, barbed wire, razor wire, and automatic gates will occur. The new fence will be 8 feet high and have 2 additional feet of fence fabric buried in the ground to deter animals from entering the airport. This project also includes demolishing the existing fence. Airport Cargo Road Rehabilitation: This project includes rehabilitation and enhancements to the roadway system in the cargo/general aviation area of the airport in The City of Kenner. The New Kenner Popular Report, , available at: Accessed February Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. The City of Kenner, Planning Department, available at: Accessed February The City of Kenner, State of the City 2011, available at: Accessed February 2013., Capital Improvement Projects, available at: Accessed July Chapter 4: Affected Environment December

76 Chapter 4 Affected Environment Airfield Electrical Rehabilitation: This project will rehabilitate and improve the reliability of the airfield electrical system. The existing electrical ductbanks would be demolished and new electrical ductbanks with associated circuit cable would be installed. The runway/taxiway edge lights, centerline lights, and runway touchdown zone lights would be replaced. This project would also include the replacement and/or upgrade of airfield signage, replace and/or reconfiguration of windcones, electrical vault improvements, new constant current regulators, and improvements to the airfield lighting control and monitoring system. Off-Airport Projects: The following projects are anticipated to occur in the City of Kenner: City of Kenner Zoning Changes: As a result of the Airport s recent Part 150 Noise Study, the NOAB bought several residential parcels within the Regional Study Area. NOAB purchased the residential parcels because land uses on the parcels were incompatible with the Airport s future aircraft noise levels (e.g., DNL 65 dba). Since these parcels have been acquired and residents relocated, the City of Kenner is in the process of converting the parcels from AR-1 in District 1, south of Airline Drive, and AR-2 in District 2 to the north. The conversion will allow the development of airport-compatible land uses that will provide the City of Kenner with tax revenues. Paths to Progress : The effort will include improving portions of Williams Boulevard, W. Metairie Avenue, and Roosevelt Boulevard. It will involve resurfacing, pavement patching, and repairing curbs. This is a collaborative effort among the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LDTD), New Orleans Regional Planning Commission (NORPC) and the City of New Orleans. [1] Replacement of Veterans and Indiana Lift Station and Force Main: This project will include the installation of a lift station and force main replacement at the intersection of Veterans Boulevard and Indiana Avenue. 23 Veterans Boulevard Improvements: This project will include roadway resurfacing and construction of new paved shoulders between Salem Street and Sharon Street. Pedestrian improvements: These improvements will occur along Williams Boulevard to enhance pedestrian movement Long-Term Future Actions As part of long-term planning efforts and visioning for the Airport, a variety of other improvements have been identified that could be implemented in the future. These improvements include the potential for an intermodal facility on the south side of the Airport, the provision of light rail transit to the Airport from downtown New Orleans, installation of a improvements to the drainage system (a drainage pump station, removal/relocation of a section of the floodwall access road, removal/replacement of a section of the Perimeter Road, and building a temporary single lane Perimeter Road), and provision of a flyover from Interstate 10 as an access to the north side of the Airport. The Airport Sponsor s proposed action would not preclude any of these long-term projects from being implemented. In addition, the Airport Sponsor s proposed action would be consistent with the City of Kenner s long-range development plans along Veterans Memorial Boulevard. However, no plans or schedule for construction for any of these projects currently exist. The Chapter 4: Affected Environment December

77 Chapter 4 Affected Environment implementation of any of these projects is not reasonably foreseeable and is beyond the planning horizon for this Terminal Replacement Project. If any of these projects do come to fruition, separate environmental analyses would be required. Chapter 4: Affected Environment December

78 5 CHAPTER 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES This chapter discusses environmental effects associated with the No Action, the Proposed Action, and the reasonable alternatives as they relate to the environmental impact categories outlined in Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Orders E, Change 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures and B, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions. As demonstrated in Chapter 4, the following environmental resources do not occur within the Study Areas this Environmental Assessment (EA) evaluates. As a result, none of the alternatives this EA evaluates would affect these resources: Farmland. The Airport Study Area does not contain any prime, unique, or statewide and locally important farmlands. In addition, the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) excludes land dedicated to aviation use prior to 1982 (see Section 4.5). Wild and Scenic Rivers. The nearest Wild and Scenic River segment is the Black Creek River, which is approximately 100 miles northeast of the Regional Study Area. Thus, no Federal or State designated rivers are within or near the Airport (see Section 4.16). Based on these findings and in accordance with the guidance provided in FAA Order B, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions (paragraph 706.e) and FAA Order E, Change 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures (paragraph 405f(1)), this EA does not examine those environmental resource categories further. The remainder of the chapter discusses the following environmental impact categories because the No Action, the Proposed Action, or a reasonable alternative would affect them: Air quality (Section 5.1); Coastal Resources (Section 5.2); Compatible Land Use (Section 5.3); Construction impacts (Section 5.4); Department of Transportation: Section 4(f) (Section 5.5) Fish, wildlife, and plants (Section 5.6); Floodplains (Section 5.7); Hazardous Materials, Solid Waste, and Pollution Prevention (Section 5.8); Historic, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources (Section 5.9); Light Emissions and Visual Impacts (Section 5.10); Natural Resources and Energy Supply (Section 5.11); Noise (Section 5.12); Secondary (Induced) Impacts (Section 5.13); Socioeconomic, Environmental Justice, and Children s Health and Safety Risks (Section 5.14); Water Quality (Section 5.15); Wetlands (Section 5.16); and Cumulative Impacts (Section 5.17). 5-1

79 In accordance with CEQ regulations, this EA integrates the requirements of NEPA and other planning and environmental review procedures required by applicable law or agency practice so that the appropriate review procedures run concurrently, rather than consecutively. 1 Therefore, this chapter includes a complete environmental analysis to expedite a concurrent environmental review process associated with following federal statutes, executive orders and regulations: Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (Coastal Resources) Title 49 United States Code (USC) 303 and 23 USC 138 (DOT Section 4(f); Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Threatened or Endangered Species ); Executive Order (Floodplains); Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Historic Resources); and Executive Order (Wetlands). 5.1 AIR QUALITY This section describes the potential air quality impacts of the Proposed Action and reasonable alternatives relative to the No Action Alternative. It also describes the laws and regulations applicable to the No Action, Proposed Action, and reasonable alternatives, how those actions would unavoidably affect air quality, and measures to mitigate those effects Background The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires Federal agencies to consider the environmental effects of proposed actions and their reasonable alternatives. Since the proposed action would have air quality effects, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) must analyze those effects to meet NEPA requirements. To do so, the FAA examines those effects relative to the six National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set to protect public health throughout the Nation. Those Standards, address the following outdoor air pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), ozone (O 3 ), 8-Hour, particulate matter (PM 10 or PM 2.5 ), and sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ). If one or more of the six criteria pollutants in a geographic area exceeds the respective NAAQS, the area is classified as a nonattainment area. Areas where concentrations of all the criteria pollutants are below non-attainment threshold levels are considered attainment areas. Former non-attainment areas that are transitioning to attainment area due to improve air quality are called maintenance areas. Although EPA establishes the NAAQS for each of the pollutants noted above, the responsibility for developing plans to meet the NAAQS lies with the states. Therefore, management of air quality conditions in Louisiana, including the Airport Study Area, is the responsibility of the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). DEQ is responsible for enforcing the Clean Air Act (CAA) including demonstrating compliance with the NAAQS, issuing permits for air emission sources, monitoring air quality conditions, and preparing the State Implementation Plan (SIP). 1 Title 40 CFR (c), Protection of the Environment, Council on Environmental Quality, Policy. 5-2

80 Regulatory Context Taken together, FAA Order B 2, National Environmental Policy (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions, and FAA Order E 3 Change 1, Environmental Impacts, Policies and Procedures provide the basis for delineating the scope of the FAA s assessment of air quality impacts under NEPA and the Clean Air Act (CAA), contain guiding criteria for determining the extent of air quality analysis, and direct agency personnel to ensure that an air quality assessment prepared under NEPA includes an analysis and summary conclusions of the proposed action s impacts on air quality and to evaluate the impact on the NAAQS. On January 12, 2012, FAA issued a memo on how to consider and evaluate aviation-related greenhouse gases (GHG) and climate change in a NEPA document 4. FAA did so after the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) affirmed that NEPA and its implementing regulations (40 CFR 1500 et seq.) apply to Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) and climate change. GHGs include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) Nitrogen Dioxide (NO 2 ), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perflurocarbons (PFCs) and sulfur hexafluroride (SF6). The CEQ instructs Federal agencies (e.g., FAA) to disclose a project s contribution to GHGs in a study. The analysis serves as a reasonable proxy to determine a project s effects on climate change and to provide interested parties with information about that change. This section uses instructions in the above FAA orders and guidance, CEQ regulations 40 CFR 1500 et seq., and information from EPA and the State of Louisiana to address project-related impacts on the Airport Study Area s air quality Methodology This EA uses information in Appendix 2 of FAA Order E, Change 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures and FAA s Air Quality Procedures for Civilian Airports & Air Force Bases (1997), and information from the EPA and the DEQ to determine the scope of the air quality assessment addressing the NAAQS. The analysis examines the changes in the air quality due to the No Action, Proposed Action and reasonable alternatives and any impact the project might have on the NAAQS. To quantify operational changes the FAA-approved version of the Emissions Dispersion Modeling System (EDMS) was used to determine airport-related changes to the emission inventory. However, dispersion modeling was not used to determine the extent of adverse air quality effects for ozone since it is a regional pollutant and localized effects are difficult to accurately model on small spatial scales such as airports. 5 Also, the greater New Orleans area is currently in attainment for ozone, and all other criteria pollutants, and the proposed action is not expected to increase annual aircraft operations at the airport. For these reasons, the proposed action is not expected to impact the NAAQS for ozone and dispersion analysis was not conducted. Instead, an emissions inventory for select years was developed for each alternative. For more detailed information on the air quality analysis, see Appendix A. Construction emissions were estimated using the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES version 2010b), NONROAD (Version 2008a) emissions model, and other appropriate guidelines. The emission estimates combine information on construction schedule, equipment type, fuel type, equipment hours of operation, and horsepower along with equipment emissions data specific to the Airport Study Area Federal Aviation Administration, Order B, National Environmental Policy (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions, April 26, Federal Aviation Administration Order E, Change 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, March 20, _GuidncMem3_GHG_Climate_NEPA_Intrm_12JAN2012.pdf. FAA s Air Quality Procedures for Civilian Airports & Air Force Bases (1997), Chapter 4 - Dispersion Assessment pg

81 GHGs: This EA uses instructions in FAA s January 12, 2012 memo to determine project-related effects on GHGs in the Airport Study Area. The EA uses information in that memo to disclose and explain those effects. General Conformity Under the CAA, a Federal agency (such as the FAA) considering an action that would occur in a non-attainment or maintenance area must ensure that the proposed action would conform with the applicable State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the criteria pollutant that has placed the project area in non-attainment or maintenance area status. The Federal agency must make that evaluation before taking any action on the proposed action (e.g., issuing financial grants-in-aid, granting a permit, unconditionally approving an airport layout plan). The EPA published the General Conformity Rule to prescribe how Federal agencies are to ensure compliance with the SIP (40 CFR Part 93, Subpart B). The Rule contains an Applicability test. The test determines whether a proposed action would cause net emissions (i.e., the difference between proposed action emissions and the future No Action Alternative emissions) that exceed the de minimis levels for the criteria pollutant(s) for which the area has been designated a non-attainment or maintenance area. In the Conformity Rule, the EPA has defined annual de minimis levels for every criteria pollutant (or pollutant precursor). Emissions below these levels would not be expected to have a significant adverse impact on air quality. If the project exceeds those levels, the Federal agency (i.e., FAA) must issue a formal General Conformity Determination. That Determination must include ways to fully offset project-related emissions for the criteria pollutant of interest. If the criteria emissions are below the de minimis levels, the Federal agency may presume that the proposed action conforms to the SIP. The New Orleans area was historically designated a nonattainment area under the previous 1- hour O 3 NAAQS, but is in attainment of the current 8-hour O 3 NAAQS. Because of its past history of nonattainment, the area is subject to an air quality maintenance plan under Section 110(a) of the Clean Air Act. However, under the transitional rules established by EPA at 40 CFR , the New Orleans area is not subject to the General Conformity rules and a conformity determination is not required. Nonetheless, it can be useful to compare the proposed action s estimated emissions to the de minimis levels defined in the General Conformity Rule. The applicable de minimis thresholds for areas located in an O 3 maintenance area but not contained within the Ozone Transport Region are 100 tons per year of nitrogen oxides (NO x ) and volatile organic compounds (VOC), both of which are considered precursors to ground level O 3 formation. In this analysis, these de minimis levels are used as a benchmark to put the emission inventory into context Environmental Consequences To meet NEPA requirements, this section discloses air quality impacts due to the No Action, Proposed Action, and reasonable alternatives. Those impacts would be based on direct emissions (i.e. construction-related emissions, aircraft operations emissions, vehicular emissions) or indirect emissions (i.e. those occurring at a later time and/or distance) those alternatives would cause. As a result, the following sections discuss how each alternative s emissions inventory would compare to de minimis levels and conclude that none of the alternatives would cause significant air quality effects for NEPA purposes. 5-4

82 The air quality analysis for the alternatives evaluates air quality effects that would occur in the build-out year (2018) and the build-out + 5 year of In this way, the year in which the emissions are expected to be the highest is included in the evaluation. Appendix A contains the detailed assumptions and methodologies used for this air quality analysis No Action Alternative Construction Impacts The No Action Alternative would not involve any construction activities at the Airport and no project components would be implemented. Therefore, there are no construction-related emissions associated with the No Action Alternative. Operational Impacts In terms of aircraft operations, the No Action Alternative would continue to use existing aircraft apron areas, runways, and taxiways. No changes to the current airfield configuration would occur. As a result, the runway utilization and taxi patterns of aircraft ground movements also remain unchanged. Aircraft operations expected to occur at the Airport during 2018 and 2023 are summarized in Table 5-1 below. Aircraft taxi times under the No Action Alternative were based on the most recent information reported to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (i.e., calendar year 2011) and are summarized in Table 5-1. The aircraft ground movement patterns assumed for the No Action Alternative are depicted on Figure 5-1. Table 5-1 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONAL SUMMARY NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE Aircraft Category Aircraft Operations /a/ Taxi Time (minutes) /b/ Taxi In Taxi Out Passenger Air Carrier 110, , Cargo Air Carrier 3,011 3, Military 1,405 1, General Aviation 19,543 19, Total 134, , /a/ The forecasts developed by NOAB are higher than the Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) prepared by the FAA. The NOAB forecasts are being used because the annual increases in enplanements has been higher than that of the TAF and airlines serving the Airport have identified increased service to existing and new destinations in In addition, the NOAB forecasts are within 10% of the TAF, which is consistent with Paragraph 706b(3)(b) of FAA Order B, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions. The FAA has approved the use of these forecasts (see Appendix B- 12). /b/ Passenger air carrier taxi times are applied on an aircraft/carrier specific basis and are presented in detail within Appendix E; the times presented above represent an airfield average based on these times and are assumed to be representative of other segments of the aircraft fleet. Sources: Project Definition Report, Bureau of Transportation Statistics Airline On-Time Statistics, Federal Aviation Administration Terminal Area Forecast,

83 Figure 5-1 AIRCRAFT GROUND MOVEMENTS NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE Source: KB Environmental Sciences, Inc., Traffic count data for the area surrounding the Airport characterize the level of motor vehicle traffic that typically occurs on the Airport s access roads and in its surrounding areas under the No Action Alternative. These data were used in conjunction with Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LDOTD) adjustment factors to calculate average annual vehicle miles traveled (AAVMT). Surface traffic emissions can then be estimated using this information. The computed AAVMT associated with the No Action Alternative for major roadways surrounding the Airport is summarized in Table 5-2, while Figure 5-2 depicts the roadways. 5-6

84 Emissions Results No construction-related emissions are associated with the No Action Alternative. Table 5-3 presents emissions expected from aircraft and motor vehicle traffic under the No Action Alternative for the study years 2018 and Table 5-2 SURFACE TRAFFIC ACTIVITY NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE Roadway Segment Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (AAVMT) Airline Drive (between Farrar Ave and Terminal Loop Rd) 2,899,068 3,123,069 Airline Drive (between Terminal Loop Road and Airport Access Road) 8,392,039 9,040,462 Veterans Memorial Blvd (between Loyola Drive and Airport Access Road) 9,556,912 10,295,366 Interstate 10 (between Loyola Drive and Williams Boulevard) 72,868,981 78,500,439 Interstate 10 (between Loyola Drive and Interstate 310) 68,219,712 73,492,054 Aberdeen Street (between Veterans Memorial Boulevard and Airport boundary) 428, ,695 Total 162,365, ,913,085 Source: Urban Systems Traffic Assessment, 2013 Table 5-3 AIRCRAFT AND ROADWAY VEHICULAR-RELATED EMISSIONS SUMMARY NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE Source Category 2018 (tons/year) 2023 (tons/year) CO VOC NO x SO 2 PM 10 PM 2.5 CO VOC NO x SO 2 PM 10 PM 2.5 Aircraft Roadway Surface Traffic 1, , Total 2, , Source: KB Environmental Sciences, Inc., Refurbishment Alternative Construction Impacts A qualitative analysis was used to examine the impact of construction emissions under the Refurbishment Alternative. Since emissions from construction activities resulting from implementation of the Northside Alternative would not be considered significant (see Section ), and the Refurbishment Alternative would require significantly less construction effort, it is inferred that emissions resulting from implementation of the Refurbishment Alternative would be lower than those considered for the Northside Alternative and, thus, also considered not significant. However, construction activities associated with the Refurbishment 5-7

85 Alternative would result in construction emissions greater than emissions associated with the No Action Alternative. Operational Impacts Under the Refurbishment Alternative, aircraft operations would remain unchanged when compared to operations described for the No Action Alternative. The Refurbishment Alternative would retain existing aircraft apron areas, runways, and taxiway layouts. As a result, airfield configurations and runway utilization would remain unchanged. Therefore, there is no increase in operational emissions associated with implementation of the Refurbishment Alternative. Vehicular Emissions The addition of long-term parking on the north side of the Airport would result in additional AAVMT on Airport Access Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard and Aberdeen Street. This increase is associated with individuals using the lot for long-term parking and an Airport shuttle bus that would be necessary to transport passengers from long-term parking to the existing Airport terminal on the south side of the Airport. When vehicular miles traveled are compared to the No Action Alternative, implementation of the Refurbishment Alternative would result in an increase of approximately two percent. See Table 5-4 and Table 5-5 for AAVMT changes and vehicular emission increases associated with implementation of the Refurbishment Alternative. Table 5-4 SURFACE TRAFFIC ACTIVITY REFURBISHMENT ALTERNATIVE Roadway Segment Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (AAVMT) Airline Drive (between Farrar Ave and Terminal Loop Rd) 2,899,068 3,123,069 Airline Drive (between Terminal Loop Road and Airport Access Road) 8,463,254 9,119,089 Veterans Memorial Blvd (between Loyola Drive and Airport Access Road) 10,271,238 11,033,193 Interstate 10 (between Loyola Drive and Williams Boulevard) 73,016,579 78,663,400 Interstate 10 (between Loyola Drive and Interstate 310) 68,219,712 73,492,054 Aberdeen Street (between Veterans Memorial Boulevard and Airport boundary) Airport Access Road (between Airline Drive and Veterans Memorial Boulevard) 942, ,116 6,322,397 7,517,988 Total 170,134, ,944,909 Source: RS&H,

86 Figure 5-2 ROADWAY SEGMENTS Source: RS&H,

87 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Chapter 5: Environmental Consequences 5-10 December 2013

88 Table 5-5 TRAFFIC EMISSIONS SUMMARY REFURBISHMENT ALTERNATIVE Source Category 2018 (tons/year) 2023 (tons/year) CO VOC NO x SO x PM 10 PM 2.5 CO VOC NO x SO x PM 10 PM 2.5 Roadway Surface 1, , Traffic Future No Action 1, , Refurbishment Alternative Increment De minimis Exceeds De minimis? N/A No No N/A N/A N/A N/A No No N/A N/A N/A Source: RS&H, 2013 Emissions Results The Refurbishment Alternative emissions would be less than those described for the Northside Alternative (see discussion under Section ). This is because the Refurbishment Alternative involves substantially less construction and demolition activities than the Northside Alternative. Since emissions from the Northside Alternative would remain below de minimis thresholds, the Refurbishment Alternative is also presumed to be below these thresholds. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the Refurbishment Alternative would result in significant adverse air quality effects Southside Alternative Construction Impacts A qualitative analysis was used to examine the impact of construction emissions under the Southside Alternative. Since emissions from construction activities resulting from implementation of the Northside Alternative (see Section ) would not be considered significant, and construction activity for the Southside Alternative is expected to be less than that for the Northside Alternative, it is inferred that emissions resulting from implementation of the Southside Alternative would be less than those projected for the Northside Alternative and thus considered not significant. However, construction activities associated with the Southside Alternative would result in construction emissions greater than emissions associated with the No Action Alternative. Operational Impacts Under the Southside Alternative, aircraft operations would remain unchanged when compared to operations described for the No Action Alternative. The Southside Alternative would retain existing aircraft apron areas, runways, taxiway layouts. As a result, airfield configurations and runway utilization would remain unchanged. Therefore, there is no increase in operational emissions associated with implementation of the Southside Alternative. Access roadway realignment associated with the Southside Alternative would result in a negligible increase in AAVMT. 5-11

89 Vehicular Emissions The addition of long-term parking on the north end of the Airport would result in additional AAVMT on Aberdeen Street, Airline Drive, Airport Access Road, and Veterans Boulevard. This increase is associated with individuals using the lot for long-term parking and an Airport shuttle bus that would be necessary to transport passengers from long-term parking to the existing Airport terminal on the south side of the Airport. When vehicular miles traveled are compared to the No Action Alternative, implementation of the Southside Alternative would result in an increase of approximately two percent. See Table 5-6 and Table 5-7 for AAVMT changes and vehicular emissions associated with implementation of the Southside Alternative. Table 5-6 SURFACE TRAFFIC ACTIVITY SOUTHSIDE ALTERNATIVE Roadway Segment Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (AAVMT) Airline Drive (between Farrar Ave and Terminal Loop Rd) 2,899,068 3,123,069 Airline Drive (between Terminal Loop Road and Airport Access Road) 8,463,254 9,119,089 Veterans Memorial Blvd (between Loyola Drive and Airport Access Road) 10,271,238 11,033,193 Interstate 10 (between Loyola Drive and Williams Boulevard) 73,016,579 78,663,400 Interstate 10 (between Loyola Drive and Interstate 310) 68,219,712 73,492,054 Aberdeen Street (between Veterans Memorial Boulevard and Airport boundary) Airport Access Road (between Airline Drive and Veterans Memorial Boulevard) 942, ,116 6,322,397 7,517,988 Total 170,134, ,944,909 Source: RS&H, 2013 Table 5-7 TRAFFIC EMISSIONS SUMMARY SOUTHSIDE ALTERNATIVE Source Category 2018 (tons/year) 2023 (tons/year) CO VOC NO x SO x PM 10 PM 2.5 CO VOC NO x SO x PM 10 PM 2.5 Roadway Surface 1, , Traffic Future No Action 1, , Southside Alternative Increment De minimis Exceeds De minimis? N/A No No N/A N/A N/A N/A No No N/A N/A N/A Source: RS&H,

90 Emissions Results When Southside Alternative emissions are qualitatively compared to the emissions associated with implementation of the Northside Alternative(see discussion under Section ), emissions within each respective analysis category of the Southside Alternative would be less than the Northside Alternative, but greater than the Refurbishment Alternative. Therefore, total emissions associated with implementation of the Southside Alternative are expected to remain well below de minimis thresholds. Therefore, no significant adverse air quality effects are associated with implementation of the Southside Alternative Westside Alternative Construction Impacts A qualitative analysis was used to examine the impact of construction emissions under the Westside Alternative. Construction activities associated with the Westside Alternative would result in construction emissions that are similar in size and magnitude when compared to the Northside Alternative. The difference in construction emissions between the Northside and Westside Alternatives is attributed to the following: Westside Alternative has approximately 36 percent less construction effort with apron and taxiway construction compared to the Northside Alternative; Westside Alternative has approximately 173 percent more construction effort with roadway and surface lot construction compared to the Northside Alternative; Westside Alternative has approximately 33 percent less construction effort with structural construction compared to the Northside Alternative; Westside Alternative has approximately nine percent more construction effort with roadway and surface lot demolition compared to the Northside Alternative; Westside Alternative has approximately 196 percent more construction effort with apron and taxiway demolition compared to the Northside Alternative; and Westside Alternative has emissions associated with structural demolition elements and no such emissions would occur with the Northside Alternative. The qualitative comparison above indicates that the total emissions from all construction and demolition activities for the Westside Alternative would be greater than that qualified for the proposed Northside Alternative. Operational Impacts Under the Westside Alternative, aircraft operations would undergo relatively minor operational changes that would result in slightly higher operational emissions. Terminal operations would be shifted to the west of the existing terminal location, which would result in negligible changes to taxi in times and slightly increased taxi out times. Additionally, the existing cargo operation would be relocated to the north side of the Airport; this would also slightly increase taxi-out times and have a negligible effect on taxi-in times. Vehicular Emissions The addition of long-term parking on the north side of the Airport would result in additional AVMT on Aberdeen Street, Airport Access Road, Airline Boulevard, and Veterans Memorial Boulevard. Additionally, moving the terminal to the northwest approximately 0.25 miles would also contribute to a slight increase in AAVMT on these roadways. This north end increase is associated with individuals using the lot for long-term parking and an Airport shuttle bus that 5-13

91 would be necessary to transport passengers from long-term parking to the Airport terminal. When vehicular miles traveled are compared to the No Action Alternative, implementation of the Westside Alternative would result in an increase of approximately three percent. See Table 5-8 and Table 5-9 for AAVMT changes and vehicular emission increases associated with implementation of the Westside Alternative. Table 5-8 SURFACE TRAFFIC ACTIVITY WESTSIDE ALTERNATIVE Roadway Segment Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (AAVMT) Airline Drive (between Farrar Ave and Terminal Loop Rd) 2,899,068 3,123,069 Airline Drive (between Terminal Loop Road and Airport Access Road) 8,729,037 9,412,536 Veterans Memorial Blvd (between Loyola Drive and Airport Access 10,271,203 11,033,193 Road) Interstate 10 (between Loyola Drive and Williams Boulevard) 73,016,544 78,663,400 Interstate 10 (between Loyola Drive and Interstate 310) 68,219,712 73,492,054 Aberdeen Street (between Veterans Memorial Boulevard and Airport 942, ,116 boundary) Airport Access Road (between Airline Drive and Veterans Memorial 6,409,455 7,605,047 Boulevard) Total 170,551, ,325,415 Source: RS&H, 2013 Table 5-9 TRAFFIC EMISSIONS SUMMARY WESTSIDE ALTERNATIVE Source Category 2018 (tons/year) 2023 (tons/year) CO VOC NO x SO x PM 10 PM 2.5 CO VOC NO x SO x PM 10 PM 2.5 Roadway Surface 1, , Traffic Future No Action 1, , Westside Alternative Increment De minimis Exceeds De minimis? Source: RS&H, 2013 N/A No No N/A N/A N/A N/A No No N/A N/A N/A Emissions Results In order for construction emissions associated with the Westside Alternative to exceed the applicable de minimis thresholds of 100 tons per year (TPY) for NO x and VOC, constructionrelated NO x and VOC emissions for this Alternative would need to be 387 percent more and 9,000 percent more, respectively, than the construction-related emissions associated with the 5-14

92 Northside Alternative. Because there is a direct relationship between construction effort and emissions, it can be expected that none of the construction-related emissions associated with the Westside Alternative would be more than 387 percent greater than the construction-related emissions associates with the Northside Alternative. Therefore, although the emissions from the Westside Alternative are expected to be higher than the Northside Alternative, they are not expected to exceed the benchmark de minimis thresholds and are not expected to adversely affect the air quality of the region Northside Alternative (Sponsor s Proposed Action) Construction Impacts Construction of airport improvements associated with the Northside Alternative would commence in 2014 and end in Since a new terminal building would be built on the Airport s north side, aprons would be relocated to that side of the Airport. In addition, new connecting taxiways would be built, on-airport and access roadways would be modified to serve the new terminal, new parking lots would be constructed, and the existing airport surveillance radar (ASR), the remote transmit receiver (RTR), and the Low Level Windshear Alert System (LLWAS) would be relocated. As a result, emissions due to heavy equipment and vehicles used for earthmoving, grading, paving, building construction, material handling and other activities would occur. Operational Impacts The Northside Alternative would not increase the Airport s aircraft operations, nor would it affect the aircraft fleet mix serving the Airport. Therefore, the future fleet mix and operational activity associated with the Northside Alternative are identical to the future No Action Alternative. However, commercial service aircraft ground operations would change due to the newlyconfigured aircraft aprons, runways, and associated taxiways needed to serve the Northside Alternative. In addition, altered movements of existing General Aviation (GA) fleet would occur because the new terminal would cause the fleet operations to move from the existing GA parking area now on the north side of the Airport. Also, changes in ground service equipment and fixed base operator operations would occur to serve the relocated GA and commercial service fleets. As a result of these changes, the runway utilization and taxi patterns of all aircraft ground movements would be affected (i.e., taxi times would change). In addition, the movements of ground service equipment serving those aircraft would also increase. These operational changes are summarized in Table 5-10 and depicted graphically on Figure 5-3. Vehicular Emissions The effects of the Northside Alternative on surface traffic demand volumes were also assessed. The assessment was based on modeling of short term traffic count data. As with the No Action Alternative, the data were used in conjunction with LDOTD adjustment factors to compute an AAVMT. The computed AAVMT associated with the Northside Alternative for major roadways surrounding the Airport is summarized in Table

93 Table 5-10 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONAL SUMMARY NORTHSIDE ALTERNATIVE Aircraft Category Aircraft Operations /a/ Taxi Time (minutes)/b/ Taxi In Taxi Out Passenger Air Carrier 110, , Cargo Air Carrier 3,011 3, Military 1,405 1, General Aviation 19,543 19, Total 134, , /a/ The forecasts developed by NOAB are higher than the Terminal Area Forecast (TAF) prepared by the FAA. The NOAB forecasts are being used because the annual increases in enplanements has been higher than that of the TAF and airlines serving the Airport have identified increased service to existing and new destinations in In addition, the NOAB forecasts are within 10% of the TAF. Refer to Table 2-2. /b/ Passenger air carrier taxi times are applied on an aircraft/carrier specific basis and are presented in detail within Appendix E; the times presented above represent an airfield average based on these times and are assumed to be representative of other segments of the aircraft fleet. Source: Project Definition Report, US Bureau of Transportation Statistics Airline On-Time Statistics, Table 5-11 SURFACE TRAFFIC ACTIVITY NORTHSIDE ALTERNATIVE Roadway Segment Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (AVMT) Airline Drive (between Farrar Ave and Terminal Loop Rd) 2,857,417 3,269,760 Airline Drive (between Terminal Loop Road and Airport Access Road) 8,271,470 9,465,096 Veterans Memorial Blvd (between Loyola Drive and Airport Access 15,254,108 16,294,698 Road) Interstate 10 (between Loyola Drive and Williams Boulevard) 77,806,773 84,732,059 Interstate 10 (between Loyola Drive and Interstate 310) 72,842,417 79,325,845 Aberdeen Street (between Veterans Memorial Boulevard and Airport 10,066,266 11,106,856 boundary) Total 187,098, ,194,315 Source: Urban Systems Traffic Assessment,

94 Figure 5-3 AIRCRAFT GROUND MOVEMENTS NORTHSIDE ALTERNATIVE Source: KB Environmental Sciences, Inc.,

95 Emissions Results Table 5-12 presents the construction period emissions inventory associated with implementation of the Northside Alternative. As shown, emissions are greatest during construction year 2014 (the first year of construction when the greatest amount of earthmoving occurs). The maximum annual emissions in 2014 are estimated to be 11 tons of CO, 1 ton of VOC, 15 tons of NO x, less than 1 ton of SO x, 4 tons of PM 10 and 1 ton of PM 2.5. The total project construction period emissions are estimated to be 24 tons of CO, 3 tons of VOC, 32 tons of NO x, less than 1 ton of SO 2, 12 tons of PM 10, and 3 tons of PM 2.5. As shown, the maximum annual emissions levels of VOC and NO x are well within applicable 100-ton/year de minimis thresholds for an O 3 maintenance area (VOC and NO x are O 3 precursors). Therefore, the construction-related emissions associated with the Northside Alternative are not expected to have a significant adverse effect on the air quality of the area. Table 5-12 CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS SUMMARY NORTHSIDE ALTERNATIVE Pollutant Emissions (tons/year) Exceeds De Minimis? Maximum Total De Minimis CO N/A VOC 1 1 < No NO x No SO x <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 -- N/A PM N/A PM < N/A Source: USEPA NONROAD2008a, 2009 USEPA MOVES2010b, KB Environmental Sciences, Inc., 2013 Table 5-13 summarizes emissions expected from aircraft and motor vehicle traffic with implementation of the Northside Alternative in years 2018 and As shown, in 2018 emissions of CO would increase by 378 tons due to the implementation of the Northside Alternative, VOC would increase by 15 tons, NO x would increase by 61 tons, SO x would increase by 8 tons, PM 10 would increase by 5 tons, and PM 2.5 would increase by 3 tons. By 2023, these increases amount to 419 tons of CO, 14 tons of VOC, 51 tons of NO x, 9 tons of SO x, 4 tons of PM 10 and 3 tons of PM 2.5. Project-related emissions of both NO x and VOC remain below the applicable de minimis thresholds for an O 3 maintenance area during both analysis years. 5-18

96 Table 5-13 OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS SUMMARY NORTHSIDE ALTERNATIVE Source Category 2018 (tons/year) 2023 (tons/year) CO VOC NO x SO x PM 10 PM 2.5 CO VOC NO x SO x PM 10 PM 2.5 Aircraft Roadway Surface Traffic 1, , Total 2, , Future No Action 2, , Northside Alternative Increment De minimis Exceeds De minimis? N/A No No N/A N/A N/A N/A No No N/A N/A N/A Source: KB Environmental Sciences, Inc., Climate Change Research has shown there is a direct correlation between aviation fuel combustion and GHG emissions. In terms of U.S. contributions, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports that "domestic aviation contributes about 3 percent of total carbon dioxide emissions, according to EPA data," compared with other industrial sources, including the remainder of the transportation sector (20 percent) and power generation (41 percent) (GAO, 2009). 6 The International Civil Aviation Organization estimates that GHG emissions from aircraft account for roughly 3 percent of all anthropogenic GHG emissions globally (Melrose, 2010). 7 Climate change due to GHG emissions is a global phenomenon, so the affected environment is the global climate. 8 The scientific community is continuing efforts to better understand the impact of aviation emissions on the global atmosphere. The FAA is leading and participating in a number of initiatives intended to clarify the role that commercial aviation plays in GHG emissions and climate. The FAA, with support from the U.S. Global Change Research Program and its participating federal agencies (e.g., National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. EPA, and U.S. Department of Energy), has developed the Aviation Climate Change Research Initiative in an effort to advance scientific understanding of regional and global climate impacts of aircraft emissions. FAA also funds the Partnership for Air Transportation Noise & Emissions Reduction Center of Excellence research initiative to quantify the effects of aircraft exhaust and contrails on global and U.S. climate and Aviation and Climate Change. GAO Report to Congressional Committees, (2009). Alan MeIrose, "European ATM and Climate Adaptation: A Scoping Study," in ICAO Environmental Report. (2010). As explained by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "greenhouse gases, once emitted, become well mixed in the atmosphere, meaning U.S. emissions can affect not only the U.S. population and environment but other regions of the world as well; likewise, emissions in other countries can affect the United States." Climate Change Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Technical Support Document for Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act 2-3 (2009), available at

97 atmospheric composition. Similar research topics are being examined at the international level by the International Civil Aviation Organization (Maurice, 2007). 9 Based on FAA data, aircraft operations at the Airport account for less than 0.5 percent of the total U.S. commercial aviation activity. 10 Therefore, assuming that GHG emissions occur in proportion to the level of activity, GHG emissions associated with existing and future aviation activity at the Airport would be expected to represent less than 0.5 percent of U.S.-generated GHG emissions. Although there are no federal standards for aviation-related GHG emissions, it is well established that GHG emissions can affect climate. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has indicated that climate should be considered in NEPA analyses. 11 The FAA has also prepared guidance on how to address GHG emissions and climate change within NEPA evaluations. 12 As noted by CEQ, "it is not currently useful for the NEPA analysis to attempt to link specific climatological changes, or the environmental impacts thereof, to the particular project or emissions, as such direct linkage is difficult to isolate and to understand". 13 The number of aircraft operations at, and the aircraft fleet mix serving, the Airport would not change as a result of the Proposed Action; only changes in taxi time would result. The proposed improvements would not cause GHG emissions to exceed 25,000 metric tons, which is a factor when considering more detailed analysis under NEPA guidelines. 14 Therefore, the GHG emissions associated with the Proposed Action would not be significant. The cumulative impact of the Northside Alternative on the global climate when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions is not currently scientifically predictable. Aviation has been calculated to contribute approximately 3 percent of global CO 2 emissions; this contribution may grow to 5 percent by Actions are underway within the U.S. and by other nations to reduce aviation's contribution through such measures as new aircraft technologies to reduce emissions and improve fuel efficiency, renewable alternative fuels with lower carbon footprints, more efficient air traffic management, market-based measures and environmental regulations including an aircraft CO 2 standard. The U.S. has ambitious goals to achieve carbonneutral growth for aviation by 2020 compared to a 2005 baseline, and to gain absolute reductions due to aviation-related GHG emissions by At present, there are no calculations showing how the above measures would individually or cumulatively affect aviation's CO 2 emissions. Moreover, there are large uncertainties regarding aviation's impact on climate. The FAA, with support from the U.S. Global Change Research Program and its participating federal agencies, has developed the Aviation Climate Change Research Initiative in an effort to Lourdes Q. Maurice and David S. Lee. Chapter 5: Aviation Impacts on Climate. Final Report of the Interactional Civil Aviation Organization (lcao) Committee on Aviation and Environmental Protection (CAEP) Workshop. October 29 through November , Montreal. SG_20082/docs/Caep8_SG2_ WPI0.pdf In 2010, the FAA Air Traffic Activity Data System reported 50,264,308 total towered aircraft operations in the United States. Within these same data, the Airport accounted for 121,203 aircraft operations, or 0.24 percent of the total aircraft operations at airports in the United States having air traffic control towers. FAA, NEPA Guidance on Consideration of the Effects of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emission, CEQ (January 12, 2012) _Final.pdf. See Massachusetts v. E.P.A., 549 U.S. 497, , (2007). Draft NEPA Guidance on Consideration of the Effects of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, CEQ (2010). Ibid. 5-20

98 advance scientific understanding of regional and global climate impacts of aircraft emissions, with quantified uncertainties for current and projected aviation scenarios under changing atmospheric conditions (Brown, et al., 2010). 15 Another aspect of climate change is rising sea levels and the potential for more frequent and severe storm events (i.e., storm surges). The impact of such events on the Airport would be similar for each of the alternatives. In addition, the replacement terminal building constructed for the Southside, Westside, and Northside Alternatives would be built to withstand category 4 hurricane force winds compared to the existing terminal building, which was constructed to withstand category 2 hurricane force winds. The Refurbishment Alternative would continue to be a building that is constructed to withstand category 2 hurricane force winds Mitigation and Best Management Practices Emissions associated with the construction and operation of the Northside Alternative are within EPA s de minimis thresholds and are not expected to significantly affect the air quality of the area. Accordingly no air quality mitigation measures are proposed. However, the following emissions reduction measures and best management practices during construction would help reduce adverse air quality effects: Reduce equipment idling times; Use cleaner burning or low emissions fuels in equipment; Encourage employee carpooling; Limit construction activities when atmospheric conditions are conducive to O 3 formation (i.e. high ozone days ); Limit construction activities during high wind events to prevent dust; Utilize warm-mix asphalt during paving operations; Water or apply dust suppressants to unpaved areas regularly; Cover stockpile materials; Install cleaning pads to deter tracking dirt and mud to areas outside the Airport as vehicles enter and leave the disturbed, project-related work sites; and Reduce vehicle speeds on unpaved roads. 15 Nathan Brown, et. al. The US Strategy for Tackling Aviation Climate Impacts, (2010). 27th International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences 5-21

99 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 5-22

100 5.2 COASTAL RESOURCES This section describes the coastal resources in the Airport Study Area and the Regional Study Area that are protected by the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). 16 It also describes the applicable laws and regulations and describes any impacts to coastal resources that could occur as a result of the implementation of the No Action Alternative or any of the reasonable alternatives. This section does not discuss the requirements of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) because none of the reasonable alternatives are located within the Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) and, as such, would affect any barrier island in the Gulf of Mexico. 17 The official Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS) map for Louisiana is located on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website Background The CZMA encourages states to preserve, protect, develop, and, where possible, restore or enhance valuable coastal resources (e.g., wetlands, floodplains, estuaries, and wildlife habitats) along the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and the Gulf of Mexico. The CZMA is unique in that state participation is voluntary and encouraged through the Federal financial incentives given to coastal states that develop and implement a comprehensive Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP). As noted, in Section , Louisiana adopted an act to protect its coastal areas in Regulatory Context Regulations set forth in 15 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 930, Subpart C, Consistency for Federal Agency Activities, apply to actions a Federal agency directly undertakes. For example, complying with this subpart ensures that any action the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) undertakes (e.g., installing navigational aids) in or affecting the coastal zone is consistent with applicable CZMP requirements. Regulations at Subpart D apply to actions a non-federal entity undertakes. For example, complying with this support ensures that any action an airport sponsor undertakes (e.g., building a new runway) in or affecting the coastal zone is consistent with applicable CZMP requirements. To meet the CZMA, the State of Louisiana adopted an act to protect its coastal areas in The act is entitled the Louisiana State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act of 1978 (Act 361), as amended. 19 The Office of Coastal Management (OCM) of the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources implements Act 361 via the Louisiana Coastal Resources Program (LCRP). 20 The OCM regulates development activities and manages the resources of the Coastal Zone with the goal of maintaining, protecting, developing, and restoring or enhancing the coastal region of Louisiana. The Office is comprised of two Divisions the U.S.C. Sections The CBRA bans Federal financial assistance for any Federal action that would occur on an ecologically fragile, storm-prone, high-risk coastal barrier island located in the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Great Lakes. The CBRA does, however, allow Federal support to build, operate, or maintain navigational aids or devices that are parts of the nation s air navigation system. The Federal Register, (No. 48 at page and No. 57 at page 52730) provides guidance on CBRA requirements. U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Coastal Resources Barrier Act, State Locater Maps, accessed October Act 361, La. R.S. 49:214-21, et.seq. 5-23

101 Permits/Mitigation Division and the Interagency Affairs and Field Services Division. According to the OCM, the law seeks to encourage multiple uses of resources and adequate economic growth, while minimizing adverse impacts of one resource use on another without imposing undue restrictions on any user. Jefferson Parish developed its Coastal Zone Management Program in 1984 to be consistent with state guidelines and with the policies and objectives of Act 361. Consistency with the plan satisfies the requirements of the CZMA. Since the state administers coastal protection, which complies with the Federal law, a request for Determination or Solicitation of Views Input from OCM s Permits and Mitigation Division is necessary for projects in close proximity to or within the Louisiana Coastal Zone. In addition, the Coastal Use Permit (CUP) process is part of the LCRP. The LCRP is an effort among Louisiana citizens, as well as federal, state, and local advisory and regulatory agencies to preserve, restore, and enhance Louisiana s valuable coastal resources. The CUP process ensures that any activity affecting the Coastal Zone is performed in accordance with guidelines established in the LCRP. Although an application must be submitted, the submittal does not guarantee that a CUP will be required; the application is simply the first step in following the Rules and Procedures for CUP s. 21 The OCM is responsible for notifying the FAA and the New Orleans Aviation Board (NOAB) about the project s consistency with the LCRP Methodology The analyses contained in this Environmental Assessment (EA) follows the requirements of the regulations protecting coastal zone resources cited above and FAA Order E, Change 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, Appendix A, Section 3. As the Airport is within the Louisiana coastal zone, a Joint Permit Application was submitted to request a formal determination regarding the need for a CUP. The Office of Coastal Management (OCM) determined that the proposed action is exempt and a CUP is not required (see Appendix B-4). This determination is valid for two years. Should the proposed activity not be initiated within the two year period, a new application would be required. Wetlands and floodplains, which are both important components of coastal resources, were reviewed in relation to impacts from the reasonable alternatives (see Section 5.16, Wetlands and Section 5.7, Floodplains) Threshold of Significance FAA Order E, Change 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, Appendix A, Section 3 does not provide a significance threshold. However, it states When a State having an approved CZM program raises an objection to the proposed action because the action would not be consistent with the applicable CZM plan, the FAA cannot approve the action, unless the objection is satisfied, or it is successfully appealed to the Secretary of Commerce. The process will be normally completed prior to a determination by the FAA of whether or not an EIS is needed for the action. In addition, the Order lists the following actions of concern that may give rise to the need to prepare an EIS. These include: 21 Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Office of Coastal Management, dnr.louisiana.gov, Accessed February

102 The State agency objects to a FAA or sponsor consistency certification because the proposed action is inconsistent with the State s CZM Plan; or The FAA or sponsor does not successfully appeal the State agency s objection to the NOAA Assistant Administrator. In either of these cases, the FAA shall not approve such an action unless it includes State agency recommended changes that would make the proposed action consistent with the State s CZM Plan Environmental Consequences No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, no construction would occur; however, surface maintenance activities (i.e., mowing) would continue as required. Thus, the No Action Alternative would continue to affect coastal resources through its normal operations Refurbishment Alternative Implementation of the Refurbishment Alternative would result in interior renovations to the existing terminal building as well as the development of additional on-airport parking facilities. However, most of these additional facilities would occur on property already previously disturbed by Airport development. The proposed long-term surface parking lot on the north side of the Airport and the roadway improvements associated with this parking lot would be constructed in an area that has not been previously disturbed. A portion of this area is a wooded tract with classified scrub-shrub wetlands (see Section ). Constructing these facilities may include cut and fill activities on areas that are undisturbed. The amount of cut and fill would be determined during the design process should the Refurbishment Alternative be selected. However, as noted in Section , a CUP would not be required for the proposed activity Southside Alternative The Southside Alternative would involve ground disturbing activities with the redevelopment of the terminal. The Southside Alternative would include demolition of Concourse A and demolition and reconstruction of Concourses B and C. Improvements to terminal access roads, expansion of parking facilities, demolition and construction of apron space as well as the construction of ancillary, on-airport facilities would also occur. In addition, the proposed long-term surface parking lot on the north side of the Airport and the roadway improvements associated with this parking lot would be constructed in an area that has not been previously disturbed. A portion of this area is a wooded tract with classified scrub-shrub wetlands (see Section ). Constructing these facilities may include cut and fill activities on both areas that were previously disturbed during earlier Airport development and on areas that are undisturbed. The amount of cut and fill would be determined during the design process should the Southside Alternative be selected. However, as noted in Section , a CUP would not be required for the proposed activity. 22 FAA Order E, Change 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, Appendix A, Section 3.4. (1)-(2) 5-25

103 Westside Alternative The Westside Alternative includes the development of a new terminal and three concourses where cargo facilities exist currently. The existing terminal building would be abandoned and Concourse D would be demolished. The Westside Alternative includes improvements to terminal access roads, expansion of parking facilities, demolition and construction of apron space as well as the construction of ancillary, on- Airport facilities. All ground disturbance related to the above facilities would occur on previously developed Airport land with exception to the long-term surface parking lot and the relocated cargo facilities. A portion of this area is a wooded tract with classified scrub-shrub wetlands (see Section ). Constructing these facilities may include cut and fill activities on both areas that were previously disturbed during earlier Airport development and on areas that are undisturbed. The amount of cut and fill would be determined during the design process should the Westside Alternative be selected. However, as noted in Section , a CUP would not be required for the proposed activity Northside Alternative (Sponsor s Proposed Action) The Northside Alternative includes the development of a new terminal and all of the ancillary facilities on the north side of the Airport. Constructing these facilities may include cut and fill activities on both areas that were previously disturbed during earlier Airport development and on areas that are undisturbed. A portion of this undisturbed area is a wooded tract with classified scrub-shrub wetlands (see Section ). The amount of cut and fill would be determined during the design process should the Northside Alternative be selected. However, as noted in Section , a CUP would not be required for the proposed activity Mitigation and Best Management Practices As noted in Section , a CUP is not required, and no mitigation would be required. However, best management practices (BMPs) 23 would be used to reduce any negative effects to the coastal zone that could occur with the implementation of any of the reasonable alternatives. As the OCM determined that a CUP is not necessary, no further coordination is required unless the proposed activity is not started within two years from the date of its determination (October 9, 2013). If no activity is stated, a new request for determination would be required. The NOAB is responsible for implementing practices necessary to ensure the project remains consistent with the OCM s determination. This will ensure the project would not cause significant effects to the coastal zone and its resources. 23 Best Management Practices are effective, practical, structural or nonstructural methods which prevent or reduce the movement of sediment, nutrients, pesticides and other pollutants from the land to surface or ground water, or which otherwise protect water quality from potential adverse effects. 5-26

104 5.3 COMPATIBLE LAND USE This section describes existing land uses and zoning conditions within the Airport Study Area and the Regional Study Area that the No Action, Proposed Action, and reasonable alternatives could potentially affect. It also describes the regulations applicable to those actions, how those actions would affect land uses in the Regional Study Area, and measures to mitigate those effects Background Land use and zoning authority is the right and responsibility of local or state governments, not Federal agencies. As a result, this Environmental Assessment (EA) examines and discloses how the Proposed Action and its reasonable alternatives would affect those land use or zoning activities. Airport development activities that may alter an airport s noise levels and that affect land uses typically involve: fleet mix changes; changes in the number of aircraft operations; air traffic changes or new approaches to a new airport or new runway; new or modified airport buildings or facilities that may require changes in aircraft operations; or new or relocated navigational aids Regulatory Context FAA Order E, Change 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, Appendix A. Section 4.1(a), states that the compatibility of existing and planned land uses in the vicinity of an airport is usually associated with the extent of the airport s noise impacts. As a result, when a noise analysis indicates there is no significant noise impact, one could make a similar conclusion about a project s compatible land use effects as they relate to airport noise. However, if the analysis of another resource category that has land use implications shows the effects on the affected resource exceed applicable thresholds of significance, then compatible land use effects should be analyzed in the context of the affected resource. City of New Orleans land use regulations The New Orleans International Airport (Airport) is owned by the City of New Orleans (City). The City has determined the Airport property is zoned as airport approach zones, airport transition zones, and airport turning zones. 24 The City Code of Ordinance places restrictions on land uses that may interfere with Airport operations (e.g., electrical interference due to a structure or visibility interference due to lights). City of Kenner land use regulations The City of Kenner owns the land in the immediate vicinity of the Airport. The City Code of Ordinances includes an aviation heavy industrial land use district. 25 Section 16A.01 states this City of New Orleans, Code of Ordinances, Part II, Chapter 22, Article V, accessed July City of Kenner, Code of Ordinances, Appendix A Zoning, Article XVI(A), accessed July

105 district provides for airports, airfields, airstrips, aviation-related facilities, and compatible industrial operations of all types. Permitted uses in the Aviation Heavy Industrial District include uses appropriate to or constituting part of an airport and/or facilities and services when developed, maintained, and/or operated as components of an airport (e.g., airport terminals). Residential uses are specifically excluded from areas zoned as aviation heavy industrial. Additionally, the City of Kenner s ordinance specifies that aviation-related land uses and other land uses compatible with aviation activities will require compliance with certain conditions to ensure compatibility with other land uses in the district and City of Kenner. Those conditions are described in Section 5(A).01.5 of the City Code of Ordinances, Appendix A, Article V(A). The New Orleans Aviation Board (NOAB), as the Airport sponsor, has provided assurance to the FAA that appropriate action, within the authority of NOAB, has been or will be taken, to the extent reasonable, to ensure existing and future land uses adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the Airport are compatible with normal airport operations. Correspondence has been sent to the City of Kenner to ensure the Proposed Action would be compatible with surrounding land uses. See Appendix B-5 for correspondence regarding the compatibility of the Proposed Action with surrounding land uses Methodology This EA evaluates various local and regional agency land use plans and regulations. In doing so, the EA examines and discloses the consistency of the No Action, Proposed Action, and reasonable alternatives with those plans and regulations. As noted above, a major portion of that examination summarizes how project-induced noise changes would potentially affect noise sensitive land uses in the areas studied (e.g., homes, schools, churches, hospitals, and businesses). That examination relies heavily on the information the Integrated Noise Model (INM) produces. Section 5.12 of this EA provides more information on the INM. To identify existing land uses, land use maps of the City of Kenner and the NOAB were reviewed. In addition, a drive-by survey of the Airport Study Area was conducted in October As noted in Section , the compatibility of existing and planned land uses within the Airport Study Area and Regional Study Area is typically associated with the extent of the Proposed Action s noise impacts. As a result, data from Section 5.11 of this EA related to aircraft and surface traffic noise were used to determine land use compatibility with existing and future City, county, and Airport plans, policies, Federal regulations, and the Airport s potential effects on neighboring residences and businesses Threshold of Significance FAA Order E, Change 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, Appendix A, Section 4.1a, provides that The compatibility of existing and planned land uses in the vicinity of an airport is usually associated with the extent of the airport s noise impacts. If the noise analysis described in Section 5.12 concludes that there is no significant impact, a similar conclusion usually may be drawn about compatible land use. However, if the Proposed Action could result in a disruption of communities, relocation of residents, and induced socioeconomic impacts, it could have further land use ramifications for existing compatible land use. Also as noted in Section 14.3 Appendix A of the Order A Significant noise impact would occur if analysis shows that the Proposed Action will cause noise sensitive areas to experience an 5-28

106 increase in noise of Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) 1.5 db or more at or above DNL 65 db noise exposure when compared to the No Action Alternative for the same timeframe Environmental Consequences As discussed in Section 5.12, none of the reasonable alternatives would alter the flight tracks and/or altitude profiles of aircraft using the Airport. Therefore, the Airport s noise contours would not change as a result of the No Action Alternative or any of the reasonable alternatives. None of the alternatives would move aircraft activity closer to any wildlife attractants or hazards noted in Section In addition, none of the alternatives would create new wildlife hazards on or near Airport property. Therefore, none of the alternatives would worsen or cause land uses that are incompatible with safe aircraft and Airport operations. Additionally, with the exception of associated roadway improvements, all of the improvements associated with each of the reasonable alternatives would occur on Airport property. As a result, none of the alternatives would adversely: change business and/or economic activity in the surrounding community; impact public service demands; or induce shifts in population movements or growth. Therefore, none of the reasonable alternatives would cause adverse secondary (induced) impacts or be inconsistent with the policies and/or plans of the City of New Orleans or the City of Kenner. For the above stated reasons, compatible land use with regards to aviation noise, safety, and secondary impacts is not further discussed in this section No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would not cause any changes in land uses or compatibility of land uses within the Airport Study Area or Regional Study Area. Therefore, the No Action Alternative would not result in any land use compatibility impacts Refurbishment Alternative The majority of projects associated with the Refurbishment Alternative would occur within or around the existing terminal with the exception of the proposed long-term surface parking lot on the north side of the Airport. The aircraft operations at the Airport would remain the same. As discussed in Sections 5.12 and 5.14, the Refurbishment Alternative would not result in appreciable changes in aircraft-related or surface traffic noise. Therefore, the Refurbishment Alternative would not cause any noise-related impacts to land uses within the Regional Study Area Southside Alternative The Southside Alternative would include surface roadway changes within the existing Airport boundary and in the immediate vicinity of the existing terminal building. The Alternative would also construct a proposed long-term surface parking lot on the north side of the Airport. However, these surface roadway changes would not cause changes in surface traffic noise that would affect existing land uses. As discussed in Sections 5.12 and 5.14, the Southside Alternative would not result in appreciable changes in aircraft-related or surface traffic noise. 5-29

107 Therefore, the Southside Alternative would not cause any noise-related impacts to land uses within the Regional Study Area Westside Alternative The Westside Alternative would include surface roadway changes within the existing Airport boundary in the vicinity of the new terminal building and concourses. The Westside Alternative would also include improvements to the north side of the Airport s property (i.e., long-term surface parking lot, roadway improvements, and relocated cargo facility). However, these surface roadway changes would not cause changes in surface traffic noise that would affect existing land uses. As discussed in Sections 5.12 and 5.14, the Westside Alternative would not result in appreciable changes in aircraft-related or surface traffic noise. Therefore, the Westside Alternative would not cause any noise-related impacts to land uses within the Regional Study Area Northside Alternative (Sponsor s Proposed Action) The Northside Alternative would include construction of a new terminal and ancillary facilities on the north side of the Airport. This would result in an increase in traffic on surface roadways north of the Airport. In addition, the Northside Alternative would result in commercial aircraft movement being concentrated on the north side of the Airport compared to the commercial aircraft movement occurring primarily on the south side of airfield. Thus, the related changes in surface traffic patterns and on-ground aircraft operations could have land use compatibility impacts in the northern portion of the Airport Study Area and in the residential neighborhoods north of the Airport in the City of Kenner. Any noise from aircraft ground operations associated with the Northside Alternative would not be audible within the residential neighborhoods north of the Airport in the City of Kenner. This is due to the distance from the closest taxiway to the residential neighborhood (over 2,000 feet), the presence of the existing light industrial and commercial neighborhood between the taxiway system and the residential neighborhood, and the presence of a new terminal building and other ancillary facilities between the source of the noise associated with aircraft ground operations and the residential neighborhoods. In addition, noise from aircraft taxiing on the existing Taxiway D currently is not shielded by any buildings. With the implementation of the Northside Alternative, Taxiway D would be demolished and the commercial aircraft apron would be constructed. Any noise from aircraft using the commercial aircraft apron would be shielded from the residential neighborhood by the new terminal building and concourses. A noise wall along the entrance road to the north terminal would be part of the ancillary facilities for the Northside Alternative. This noise wall has been designed to reduce noise effects in the residential neighborhood north of the Airport in the City of Kenner (see Section 5.12). Due to the roadway improvements associated with the Northside Alternative, 27 th Street would no longer be a through street. All connections between the neighborhoods along 27 th Street that are west and east of Aberdeen Street would occur along Veterans Memorial Boulevard. However, given the low existing volume of traffic on 27 th Street, the alteration of traffic patterns would not be considered a significant impact (see Section 5.14). In addition, the scoping session and outreach to the local school district did not result in any concerns from neighborhood residents or school district administrators associated with the closure of 27 th Street (see Appendix B-2 and Appendix B-11). As a result, no land use compatibility impacts would occur with the Northside Alternative. 5-30

108 5.3.3 Mitigation and Best Management Practices No significant land use compatibility impacts would occur with any of the reasonable alternatives. Therefore, no mitigation is required. 5-31

109 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 5-32

110 5.4 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS This section discusses the effects of project-related construction on the various environmental resources in the Airport Study Area, regulations applicable to construction, and measures to mitigate construction-related effects Background Construction activities, although short-term in duration, may have the potential to cause substantial environmental effects. Unavoidable, construction-related air quality emissions, noise, changes in surface traffic density and flow, water quality degradation, soil erosion, habitat loss, use of natural resources and energy, and exposure of workers to hazardous materials are examples of such effects. For a summary of the project components associated with each alternative, see Chapter 3, Alternatives Regulatory Context The regulations the Environmental Assessment (EA) addresses depend upon the various regulations protecting the affected environmental resources (e.g., 40 CFR Part 122 addressing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Permit System requirements or Executive Order requirements on floodplains or wetlands). In addition, construction specifications associated with the selected alternative will incorporate: the provisions of Advisory Circular (AC) 150/ C 26 ; required mitigation; and applicable Federal, State and local regulations to reduce those effects Methodology This EA uses the requirements of the laws and regulations noted above and the applicable portions of FAA Order E, Change 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, Appendix A Threshold of Significance This EA uses the significance thresholds in Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Order E, Change 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, Appendix A that apply to each environmental resource that construction activities would affect Environmental Consequences Construction-related impacts are associated with effects on air quality (see Section 5.1), hazardous materials, solid waste, and pollution prevention (see Section 5.8), light emissions and visual impacts (see Section 5.10), noise (see Section 5.12), socioeconomic, environmental justice, and children s health and safety risks (see Section 5.14), and water quality (see Section 5.15). The construction-related impacts associated with the implementation of each reasonable alternative are discussed in each respective environmental section of this EA. With applicable mitigation measures and best management practices (BMPs), there would be no significant impacts to the environmental resource categories listed above. 26 Federal Aviation Administration. Advisory Circular 150/ C, Standards for Specifying Construction at Airports, Item P-156 Temporary Air and Water Pollution, Soil Erosion and Siltation Control, current edition. 5-33

111 5.4.3 Mitigation and Best Management Practices Construction-related mitigation and best management practices are discussed in the respective sections of this EA addressing air quality, floodplains, noise, water quality, and wetlands. 5-34

112 5.5 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ACT SECTION 4(f) This section describes the resources in the Regional Study Area (see Section 4.4) that are protected by 49 U.S.C. Section 303(c) (commonly known as Section 4(f)) and the effects the Proposed Action and reasonable alternatives would have on those resources Background Section 4(f)) of the Department of Transportation (DOT) Act, which is codified and renumbered as 49 USC Section 303(c), provides that the Secretary of Transportation will not approve any program or project that requires the use of any publicly-owned park, recreational area, or wildlife or waterfowl refuge of national, State, or local significance or land from an historic site of national, State, or local significance, as determined by the officials having jurisdiction thereof, unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land and such program, and the project includes all possible panning to minimize harm resulting from the use. For Section 4(f) purposes, a proposed action would eliminate a resource s use in one of two ways. Physical use. Here, the action physically occupies and directly uses the Section 4(f) resource. Here an action s occupancy or direct control (via purchase) causes a change in the use of the Section 4(f) resources. For example, building a runway safety area across a fairway of a publicly-owned golf course is a physical taking because the transportation facility physically used the course by eliminating the fairway. Constructive use. Here, the action indirectly uses a Section 4(f) resource by substantially impairing the resource s intended use, features, or attributes. For example, a constructive use of an overnight camping area would occur when project-related aircraft noise eliminates the camping area s solitude. Although not physically occupying the area, the project indirectly uses the area by substantially impairing the features and attributes (i.e., solitude) that are necessary for the area to be used as an overnight camping area Regulatory Context In addition to Section 6, Chapter 7 of Order E, Appendix A, Section 3.g of FAA s Environmental Desk Reference for Airport Actions, (Desk Reference) provides guidance specific to airport projects to determine project use of a Section 4(f) resource. That guidance is consistent with the requirements of the laws and regulations noted above and in Appendix A, Section 6 of FAA Order E, Change 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures. In addition, methods used to determine land use compatibility under 14 CFR Part 150 (Noise Compatibility Planning) are helpful in determining if aircraft noise would cause a constructive use of Section 4(f) land Threshold of Significance FAA Order E, Change 1, Appendix A6.3 states that a significant impact would occur pursuant to NEPA when a proposed action either involves more than a minimal physical use of a Section 4(f) property or is deemed a "constructive use" substantially impairing the 4(f) property, and mitigation measures do not eliminate or reduce the effects of the use below the threshold of significance. 5-35

113 Methodologies The analyses contained in this Environmental Assessment (EA) follows the requirements of the regulations protecting Section 4(f) properties cited above and FAA Order E, Change 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, Appendix A, Section 6. The Regional Study Area was reviewed for any publicly-owned park, recreational area, wildlife or waterfowl refuge, or historic site. An analysis of whether any components of any of the reasonable alternatives would have a physical or constructive use of the Section 4(f) property was conducted Environmental Consequences No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would not result in any physical improvements or changes to the existing terminal building, terminal access roads, parking facilities, and ancillary facilities at the New Orleans International Airport (Airport). In addition, this alternative would not result in aircraft operational changes at the Airport. Therefore, the No Action Alternative would not result in a physical or constructive use impact to Section 4(f) resources within the Regional Study Area Refurbishment Alternative Implementation of the Refurbishment Alternative would occur on Airport property. Therefore, the potential earth-moving, modernization, and construction activities associated with the Refurbishment Alternative would not result in a physical use of any Section 4(f) resource within the Regional Study Area (see Section 4.4 for descriptions of these resources). As described in Section 5.12, the Refurbishment Alternative would not induce additional aircraft operations, alter the aircraft fleet mix, or operational time-of-day at the Airport. Additionally, the existing primary runways, 1/19 and 10/28, would remain in the same layout, and runway utilization, flight tracks, and altitude profiles would also not change. Therefore, significant aircraft noise impacts are not anticipated as a result (see Section 5.12). In addition, the operation of aircraft (arrivals and departures) at the Airport associated with the Refurbishment Alternative would not differ from the No Action Alternative. Therefore, visual impacts by aircraft would not occur. Since the Refurbishment Alternative would not result in any change to the activities at any of the four parks in the Regional Study Area and would not have any effect on the Raziano House (see Section 5.9), the Refurbishment Alternative would not result in a constructive use to Section 4(f) resources within the Regional Study Area Southside Alternative Implementation of the Southside Alternative would occur on Airport property. Therefore, the potential earth-moving, modernization, and construction activities associated with the Southside Alternative would not result in a physical use of any Section 4(f) resource within the Regional Study Area (see Section 4.4 for descriptions of these resources). As described in Section 5.12, the Southside Alternative would not induce additional aircraft operations, alter the aircraft fleet mix, or operational time-of-day at the Airport. Additionally, the existing primary runways, 1/19 and 10/28, would remain in the same layout, and runway 5-36

114 utilization, flight tracks, and altitude profiles would also not change. Therefore, significant aircraft noise impacts are not anticipated as a result (see Section 5.12). In addition, the operation of aircraft (arrivals and departures) at the Airport associated with the Southside Alternative would not differ from the No Action Alternative. Therefore, visual impacts by aircraft would not occur. Since the Southside Alternative would not result in any change to the activities at any of the four parks in the Regional Study Area and would not have any effect on the Raziano House (see Section 5.9), the Southside Alternative would not result in a constructive use to Section 4(f) resources within the Regional Study Area Westside Alternative Implementation of the Westside Alternative would occur on Airport property. Therefore, the potential earth-moving, modernization, and construction activities associated with the Westside Alternative would not result in a physical use of any Section 4(f) resource within the Regional Study Area (see Section 4.4 for descriptions of these resources). As described in Section 5.12, the Westside Alternative would not induce additional aircraft operations, alter the aircraft fleet mix, or operational time-of-day at the Airport. Additionally, the existing primary runways, 1/19 and 10/28, would remain in the same layout, and runway utilization, flight tracks, and altitude profiles would also not change. Therefore, significant aircraft noise impacts are not anticipated as a result (see Section 5.12). In addition, the operation of aircraft (arrivals and departures) at the Airport associated with the Westside Alternative would not differ from the No Action Alternative. Therefore, visual impacts by aircraft would not occur. Since the Westside Alternative would not result in any change to the activities at any of the four parks in the Regional Study Area and would not have any effect on the Raziano House (see Section 5.9), the Westside Alternative would not result in a constructive use to Section 4(f) resources within the Regional Study Area Northside Alternative (Sponsor s Proposed Action) Implementation of the Northside Alternative would mostly occur on Airport property. Off-Airport improvements would be limited to the development of the new Airport entrance road and improvements along the Bainbridge Street alignment. Neither of these roadways is in close proximity to any Section 4(f) resource. Therefore, the potential earth-moving, modernization, and construction activities associated with the Northside Alternative would not result in a physical use of any Section 4(f) resource within the Regional Study Area (see Section 4.4 for descriptions of these resources). In addition, because neither of the roadways is in close proximity to any Section 4(f) resource, the traffic using these roadways would not result in a constructive use of any Section 4(f) resource within the Regional Study Area. As described in Section 5.12, the Northside Alternative would not induce additional aircraft operations, alter the aircraft fleet mix, or operational time-of-day at the Airport. Additionally, the existing primary runways, 1/19 and 10/28, would remain in the same layout, and runway utilization, flight tracks, and altitude profiles would also not change. Although the Northside Alternative includes new taxiways and gate locations, the noise levels associated with taxiing aircraft are generally lower than noise levels that arriving and departing aircraft would cause. Any changes in noise exposure due solely to taxiing operations are unlikely to result in significant impacts to noise exposure. Therefore, significant aircraft noise impacts are not anticipated as a result (see Section 5.12). In addition, the operation of aircraft (arrivals and departures) at the Airport associated with the Northside Alternative would not differ from the No Action Alternative. Therefore, visual impacts by aircraft would not occur. The new Airport 5-37

115 entrance road associated with the Northside Alternative would not result in any constructive use of Section 4(f) resource. The closest Section 4(f) resource to the new Airport entrance road is Susan Park, which is about 0.3 miles northeast of the intersection of Loyola Drive and Veterans Memorial Boulevard. Susan Park is not visible from the new Airport entrance road and the recreational activities that occur in Susan Park would not be affected by the new Airport entrance road. Since the Northside Alternative would not result in any change to the activities at any of the four parks in the Regional Study Area and would not have any effect on the Raziano House (see Section 5.9), the Northside Alternative would not result in a constructive use to Section 4(f) resources within the Regional Study Area Mitigation and Best Management Practices No significant Section 4(f) impacts (physical or constructive) would occur with any of the reasonable alternatives. Therefore, no mitigation is required. 5-38

116 5.6 FISH, WILDLIFE, AND PLANTS This section describes the applicable laws and regulations and the potential impact of the reasonable alternatives on fish, wildlife, and plant species within the Airport Study Area Background As noted below, a number of Federal laws, regulations, and Executive Orders apply to biotic communities in the Airport Study Area. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); 27 Airport and Airways Development Act, Section 47106(c)(1)(B); 28 The Endangered Species Act; 29 Related Essential Fish Habitat Requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, as amended by Sustainable Fisheries Act; 30 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980; 31 Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species; 32 Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1981; 33 The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act; 34 and Presidential Memorandum on Environmentally and Economically Beneficial Landscape Practices on Federally Landscaped Grounds. 35 Note: Due to the number of Federal laws and Executive Orders applicable to the proposed action, this Section presents only the legal citations or references for those requirements in lieu of summarizing their requirements. See FAA Order E, Appendix A for more information Regulatory Context Numerous regulations that implement the Federal Acts listed in Section include: 40 CFR, Protection of Environment, which provides the regulations implementing NEPA. Those regulations require Federal agencies to analyze and disclose the effects of major Federal actions affecting the environment to the public and to seek public input on those effects; 50 CFR Part 402, Interagency Cooperation Endangered Species Act of 1973, as Amended, which provides instructions on Federal agency consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and on preparing biological assessments to determine project-related effects on Federally-listed endangered and threatened species. 50 CFR , Federal Agency Consultation with the Secretary, which requires Federal agencies approving or funding Federal actions that may affect essential fish habitat to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) U.S.C. Sections See Chapter 1, Section 2 of the Desk Reference U.S.C. Section 47106(c)(1)(B) U.S.C. Sections See Chapter 8, Section 2 of the Desk Reference U.S.C. Section 1855(b)(2) U.S.C. Section Vol. 64 Federal Register, page 6183, Feb U.S.C. Sections U.S.C. Section 661 et. seq. 35 Vol. 60 Federal Register, page 40837, Aug

117 50 CFR Parts 10, General Provisions, and 10.13, List of Migratory Birds, which discusses the taking and protection of the listed migratory birds, respectively. Note: There are no regulations implementing the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. Section 662 of the Act requires Federal agencies to coordinate with USFWS when an action would affect a waterway Methodology This section is consistent with the requirements of the laws and regulations noted above and FAA Order E, Change 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, Appendix A.8. As part of this analysis, coordination with the State of Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Office of Wildlife (LDWF) letter dated January 10, 2013, stated that based upon its review, it is anticipated that the proposed activity will have minimal or no long-term adverse impacts to rare, threatened or endangered species, or critical habitats (see Appendix B-2). In addition, the NOAB submitted correspondence disclosing the project to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) regarding the presence of endangered, threatened, and/or candidate species and the use of the USFWS on-line tool resulted in the determination that no endangered, threatened or candidate species would be affected by the proposed action (see Appendix B-3). Field investigations of the Airport Study Area were conducted on February, 28, 2013 and August 2, 2013, to determine the types of habitat, wildlife, and plants that exist in the area. The surveys did not reveal any Federally-protected or state-designated species of flora or fauna previously discussed in Section 4.6, Fish, Wildlife, and Plants. See Appendix F for the biological survey of the Airport Study Area Threshold of Significance According to FAA Order E, Change 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, Appendix A, Section 8.3, A significant impact to Federally-listed threatened and endangered species would occur when the FWS and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) determines that the proposed action would be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species in question, or would result in the destruction or adverse modification of Federally-designated critical habitat in the affected area. However, an action need not involve a threat of extinction to Federally listed species to meet the NEPA standard of significance. Lesser impacts including impacts on non-listed species could also constitute a significant impact. In consultation with agencies and organizations having jurisdiction or special expertise concerning the protection and/or management of the affected species, NEPA practitioners should consider factors affecting population dynamics and sustainability for the affected species such as reproductive success rates, natural mortality rates, non-natural mortality (e.g., road kills and hunting), and the minimum population levels required for population maintenance Environmental Consequences No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative is anticipated to have no direct or indirect impact on fish, wildlife, and plants beyond those that would occur as the New Orleans International Airport (Airport) continues its operation. Without a new terminal and associated development or changes in management practices within these areas, fish, wildlife, and plants would continue to co-exist with those operations and on-going maintenance activities. 5-40

118 Refurbishment Alternative The Refurbishment Alternative proposes continued use of the existing terminal and concourses with improvements made to enable the terminal and concourses to operate more efficiently. The Refurbishment Alternative also includes a long-term parking lot immediately west of the existing terminal building, a long-term surface parking lot on the north side of the Airport, and the associated on-airport access roadway on the north side of the Airport. The area of disturbance associated with the Refurbishment Alternative would not have a significant impact on threatened or endangered species of fish, wildlife, or plants as no listed species were found to exist within the Airport Study Area, (see Section and Appendix F). The improvements of the existing terminal and long-term parking expansion would not significantly affect unlisted fish, wildlife, and plants, since prior Airport development has previously disturbed the areas where the Refurbishment Alternative would occur. Construction, however, may temporarily and indirectly affect the fish, wildlife, and plants found within the drainage ditch/detention pond due to changes in the drainage system, as well as directly affect those found in the affected wetland area (see Section 5.15). However, such impacts would not be considered significant as no listed species would be jeopardized; the wetland and drainage ditch/detention pond are not considered critical habitat; and the direct and temporary indirect impacts to unlisted species would not affect population sustainability due to similar habitat being located adjacent to affected areas Southside Alternative The Southside Alternative proposes redevelopment of the terminal building and two of the three concourses in the same general location as the existing terminal and concourses. This alternative also includes improvements to the terminal loop roadway, expansion of the shortterm parking garage, and construction of a long-term surface parking lot on the north side of the Airport. The majority of improvements are previously disturbed areas which are mostly covered with concrete. The area of disturbance associated with the Southside Alternative would not have a significant impact on threatened or endangered species of fish, wildlife, or plants because, as previously discussed, no listed species exist within the Airport Study Area. This alternative, like the Refurbishment Alternative, has the potential to result in both direct and, temporary, indirect impacts to unlisted fish, wildlife, and plants found within the wetland and the drainage ditch/detention pond area on the north side of the Airport. See Section 5.15, Wetlands, for additional information, impacts, and mitigation. However, such impacts would not be considered significant as no listed species would be jeopardized; the wetland and drainage ditch/detention pond are not considered critical habitat; and the direct and temporary indirect impacts to unlisted species would not affect population sustainability due to similar habitat being located adjacent to affected areas Westside Alternative The Westside Alternative proposes construction of a new terminal building and three concourses in the current cargo facility location, west of the existing terminal. The cargo facilities would be moved to an area on the north side of the Airport. This alternative also includes terminal loop roadway improvements to provide access to the new terminal, apron 5-41

119 demolition and construction, a short-term parking garage, an employee parking lot, and a longterm surface parking lot with access road on the north side of the Airport. The area of disturbance associated with the Westside Alternative would not have a significant impact on threatened or endangered species of fish, wildlife, or plants because, as previously discussed, no listed species exist within the Airport Study Area. This alternative, like the Refurbishment Alternative, has the potential to result in both direct and temporary, indirect impacts to unlisted fish, wildlife, and plants found within the wetland and the drainage ditch/detention pond area on the north side of the Airport. See Section 5.15, Wetlands, for additional information, impacts, and mitigation. However, such impacts would not be considered significant as no listed species would be jeopardized; the wetland and drainage ditch/detention pond are not considered critical habitat; and the direct and temporary indirect impacts to unlisted species would not affect population sustainability due to similar habitat being located adjacent to affected areas Northside Alternative (Sponsor s Proposed Action) The Northside Alternative includes the development of a new terminal and ancillary facilities on the north side of the Airport and the relocation of the Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR) and other navigational aids. The area of disturbance associated with the Northside Alternative would not have adverse direct impacts on threatened or endangered fish, wildlife, and plants, since the majority of the area is regularly maintained to support safe airport operations and is void of such species. This alternative, like the Refurbishment Alternative, has the potential to result in both direct and temporary, indirect impacts to unlisted fish, wildlife, and plants found within the wetland and the drainage ditch/detention pond area on the north side of the Airport. See Section 5.15, Wetlands, for additional information, impacts, and mitigation. However, such impacts would not be considered significant as no listed species would be jeopardized; the wetland and drainage ditch/detention pond are not considered critical habitat; and the direct and temporary indirect impacts to unlisted species would not affect population sustainability due to similar habitat being located adjacent to affected areas Mitigation and Best Management Practices No significant impacts to fish, wildlife, or plants would occur with any of the reasonable alternatives. Therefore, no mitigation is required. 5-42

120 5.7 FLOODPLAINS This section provides an overview of the potential floodplain impacts associated with the No Action Alternative and the reasonable alternatives Background Floodplains are areas that periodically become inundated by adjacent rivers, creeks, ditches, lakes, or other surface water features. Floodplains also can be isolated areas adjacent to water sources that experience temporary ponding. Floodplains typically become inundated after large storm events, downstream constrictions, or obstructions. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), floodplains are defined based on the frequency or likelihood that a specific area will become flooded. For example, a 100-year floodplain is an area that statistically has a one percent chance of becoming flooded each year, and a 20-year floodplain has a five percent chance of becoming flooded each year Regulatory Context FEMA, often assisted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), determines the boundaries of floodplains based on hydrologic modeling. The results of this modeling are published as Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). Areas within the 100-year floodplain (Zone A) have a one percent chance of becoming flooded each year. In addition to the risk and safety concerns for property and human life, development in the floodplain has an impact on the amount of flood storage the floodplain can provide. As a result, local, State, and Federal agencies regulate construction in the 100-year floodplain. Executive Order Floodplain Management 36 provides policy guidance for Federally-approved or funded airport projects that encroach on floodplains. Department of Transportation (DOT) Order , Floodplain Management and Protection, requires FAA, as a U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) agency, to meet the Executive Order s requirements. Information in FEMA s Floodplain Management Guidelines provides information on how to meet those requirements Methodology This EA uses guidance contained in FAA Order E, Change 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, Appendix A.9 and FAA Airports Desk Reference, Chapter 12, Floodplains. That information is consistent with the requirements of the laws and regulations noted above and: identifies alternatives; discloses floodplain effects and evaluates alternatives; develops conceptual measures to mitigate unavoidable floodplain effects; determines if an airport action would cause a significant floodplain encroachment (i.e. examines whether the action would have a high likelihood of loss of human life; whether the action would likely have substantial encroachment-associated costs or damage including interrupting aircraft service or loss of vital transportation facility; or whether there is a notable, adverse effect on the affected floodplain s natural and beneficial values); and 36 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Order 11988, Floodplain Management, current edition. 5-43

121 if applicable, after balancing related social, environmental, economic and engineering considerations, explains why placing the proposed facility in the 100-year floodplain is the only practicable alternative. As discussed in Section 4.7, Jefferson Parish is using the Preliminary Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRM) panels released by FEMA in 2008 for building and permitting. The DFIRM were updated in 2012 but are currently under review. It is anticipated that the 2012 Preliminary DFIRM will become effective in Fall of Although it is very likely that the 2012 Preliminary DFIRM will be used for regulatory purposes for the proposed action, this EA uses the 2008 Preliminary DFIRM because the 2008 and 2012 Preliminary DFIRM are essentially the same within the Airport Study Area. A Floodplain Analysis was completed and is included in this EA as Appendix K. The FAA has coordinated with the floodplain administrators regarding the impacts associated with the Proposed Action and reasonable alternatives (see Appendix B-7). The floodplain administrators have concurred with the FAA s determination that the Northside Alternative (Sponsor s Proposed Action) is the most feasible and practicable alternative (see Appendix B- 7) Threshold of Significance FAA Order E, Change 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures states: floodplain impacts would be significant pursuant to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) if they cause notable adverse impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values. Mitigation measures for base floodplain encroachments may include committing to special flood-related design criteria, elevating facilities above base flood level, locating nonconforming structures and facilities out of the floodplain, or minimizing fill placed in floodplains Environmental Consequences The following sections discuss the potential floodplain impacts of the No Action Alternative and the reasonable alternatives. The methodology for determining and comparing unavoidable floodplain impacts involves quantifying the area of floodplain encroachment each alternative would cause based on the alternative s current layout. Table 5-14 lists the area of floodplain impacts associated with each reasonable alternative based upon the 2008 Preliminary DFIRM. Figures 5-4 through Figure 5-7 show each reasonable alternative relative to the 2008 Preliminary DFIRM. 5-44

122 Figure 5-4 FLOODPLAIN IMPACTS FOR REFURBISHMENT ALTERNATIVE Source: RS&H,

123 Figure 5-5 FLOODPLAIN IMPACTS FOR SOUTHSIDE ALTERNATIVE Source: RS&H,

124 Figure 5-6 FLOODPLAIN IMPACTS FOR WESTSIDE ALTERNATIVE Source: RS&H,

125 Figure 5-7 FLOODPLAIN IMPACTS FOR NORTHSIDE ALTERNATIVE Source: RS&H,

126 Table 5-14 FLOODPLAIN IMPACTS Preliminary DFIRM Floodplain Encroachment (in acres) Amount of Increased Discharge Airport Drainage Basin Affected /a/ No Action Alternative (No improvements would occur) Terminal Improvements N/A None None Remote Surface Parking Lot N//A Long-Term Parking Lot N/A PERVIOUS SURFACE IMPACTS 0 NEW IMPERVIOUS SURFACE 0 IMPACTS TOTAL IMPACTS 0 Refurbishment Alternative Terminal Expansion N/A 125 cfs /b/ Canals 14 and Garage Expansion N/A 19 Long Term Parking (North side) 27.7 Access 0.3 PERVIOUS SURFACE IMPACTS 0 NEW IMPERVIOUS SURFACE 28.0 IMPACTS TOTAL IMPACTS 28.0 Southside Alternative Terminal and Access cfs Canals 14 and Parking Garage Expansion N/A 19, Duncan Long Term Parking (North side) 27.7 Canal PERVIOUS SURFACE IMPACTS 0 NEW IMPERVIOUS SURFACE 29.7 IMPACTS TOTAL IMPACTS 29.7 Westside Alternative Terminal and Access cfs Canal 14 and Parking Garage (Southside) , Duncan Employee Lot (Southside) 2.0 Canal, Butler Canal Long Term Parking (North side) 27.7 Access 0.3 FedEx Relocation 1.3 PERVIOUS SURFACE IMPACTS 17.0 NEW IMPERVIOUS SURFACE 71.1 IMPACTS TOTAL IMPACTS 88.1 Northside Alternative Terminal and Access cfs Canal 14 and 19, Parking Garage (North Side) 1.5 Duncan Canal Taxi Holding Area 2.2 PERVIOUS SURFACE IMPACTS 23.0 NEW IMPERVIOUS SURFACE 26.3 IMPACTS TOTAL IMPACTS 49.3 /a/ Airport drainage basins are defined in the draft document Airport Drainage Study prepared by Crescent City Aviation Team dated August 5, /b/ cfs cubic feet per second Source: RS&H,

127 As seen in Figures 5-4 through Figure 5-7, much of the Airport lies within the 100-year floodplain. Due to the existing airfield configuration and airside/landside layout constraints, siting outside of the floodplain is not practicable. Therefore, the proposed action and each reasonable alternative within the floodplain are evaluated for effects on natural and beneficial floodplain values, including encroachment, significant encroachment, and potential measures to minimize potential harm No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would not increase the area of impervious surfaces or require the addition of fill at the Airport. Therefore, the No Action Alternative would not alter any existing, airport-related floodplain impacts Refurbishment Alternative As proposed, the Refurbishment Alternative would directly affect 28.0 acres using the 2008 Preliminary DFIRM and would result in an increased discharge of 125 cubic feet per second (cfs) (see Table 5-14 and Figure 5-4). Those impacts are associated with the development of the long-term surface parking lot on the north side of the Airport and the roadway improvements that provide access to this proposed parking lot. The Refurbishment Alternative proposes the long-term parking in the floodplain s location because of the Airport s existing airfield configuration and development constraints. This parking would likely be placed on fill within the floodplain to promote positive drainage from the pavement to an on-site collection and conveyance system. This increase in impervious surfaces in the floodplain would have an adverse impact on the amount of flood storage the floodplain can provide and the development would be required to meet pre-development/post-development discharge to the existing drainage collection system. Potential solutions would include developing on-site detention basins or pumping the runoff into the wetlands west of the Airport (see Figure 4-10). Should detention basins be developed, appropriate measures would be taken to deter wildlife. In compliance with Executive Order and the U.S. Department of Transportation Order , Floodplain Management and Protection, a preliminary floodplain alternatives analysis was conducted (see Appendix K). This analysis concluded that the Refurbishment Alternative would not result in a significant encroachment because it would not: result in a high likelihood of loss of human life; have substantial, encroachment-associated costs or damage including interrupting service or loss of a vital transportation facility; or, result in notable adverse impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values Southside Alternative As proposed, the Southside Alternative would directly affect 29.7 acres using the 2008 Preliminary FIRM and would result in an increase discharge of 125 cfs (see Table 5-14 and Figure 5-5). Most (27.7 acres) of the Southside Alternative s floodplain effects would be due to developing a long-term surface parking lot on the north side of the Airport. The long-term parking lot proposes the proposed location because of the Airport s existing airfield configuration and development constraints. The Southside Alternative s increase in impervious surfaces in the floodplain would affect the volume of flood storage. In addition, the parking lots would have to be built on fill placed in the floodplain to promote positive drainage from the pavement to an on-site collection and conveyance system. 5-50

128 To address stormwater handling needs due to increased impervious surfaces and floodplain fill, the development would be required to meet pre-development/post-development discharge to the existing drainage collection system. Potential solutions would include developing on-site detention basins or pumping the runoff into the wetlands west of the Airport (see Figure 4-10). Should detention basins be developed, appropriate measures would be taken to deter wildlife. In compliance with Executive Order and the U.S. Department of Transportation Order , Floodplain Management and Protection, a preliminary floodplain alternatives analysis was conducted (see Appendix K). This analysis concluded that Southside Alternative would not result in a significant encroachment because it would not: result in a high likelihood of loss of human life; have substantial, encroachment-associated costs or damage including interrupting service or loss of a vital transportation facility; or, result in notable adverse impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values Westside Alternative As proposed, the Westside Alternative would directly affect 88.1 acres using the 2008 Preliminary FIRM and would result in an increased discharge of 250 cfs (see Table 5-14 and Figure 5-6). The proposed new terminal area would affect approximately 36 acres of floodplain identified in the 2008 Preliminary DFIRM. To comply with minimum floodplain standards required by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) for new buildings in a Zone AE floodplain, the new terminal would have to be elevated to or above the base flood elevation. This could require placing fill in the floodplain. Alternatively, the terminal building could be elevated on pile or column foundations. This could minimize adverse impacts to the floodplain storage and control values. However, this analysis assumes placement of fill within the floodplain as a conservative approach to assessing potential floodplain impacts. Portions of the long-term parking lot, parking garage, employee lot, roadway improvements on the south side of the Airport, as well as the relocated air cargo facility and long-term surface parking lot on the north side of the Airport would affect the floodplain. This increase in impervious surfaces and placement of fill in the floodplain would reduce the floodplain s flood storage. As a result, to address stormwater handling needs due to increased impervious surfaces and floodplain fill, the development would be required to meet pre-development/postdevelopment discharge to the existing drainage collection system. Potential solutions would include developing on-site detention basins or pumping the runoff into the wetlands west of the Airport (see Figure 4-10). Should detention basins be developed, appropriate measures would be taken to deter wildlife. In compliance with Executive Order and the U.S. Department of Transportation Order , Floodplain Management and Protection, a preliminary floodplain alternatives analysis was conducted (see Appendix K). This analysis concluded that the Westside Alternative would not result in a significant encroachment because it would not: result in a high likelihood of loss of human life; have substantial, encroachment-associated costs or damage including interrupting service or loss of a vital transportation facility; or, result in notable adverse impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values. 5-51

129 Northside Alternative (Sponsor s Proposed Action) As proposed, the Northside Alternative would directly affect 49.3 acres using the 2008 Preliminary DFIRM and would result in an increased discharge of 450 cfs (see Table 5-14 and Figure 5-7). The Northside Alternative would include a new terminal building and concourses on the north side of the Airport. According to the floodplain identified in the 2008 Preliminary DFIRM, the new terminal building would affect approximately 22.6 acres of floodplain. To comply with minimum floodplain standards required by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) for new buildings in a Zone AE floodplain, the new terminal would have to be elevated to or above the base flood elevation. This could require placing fill in the floodplain. Alternatively, the terminal building could be elevated on pile or column foundations. This could minimize adverse impacts to the floodplain storage and control values. However, this alternative assumes placement of fill within the floodplain as a conservative approach to assessing potential floodplain impacts. In addition, the parking garage and taxi holding area would have potential impacts of 3.7 acres of fill in the floodplain. The Northside Alternative would result in the placement of fill material for the terminal, parking lots, and proposed roadway connections. Solutions to the additional drainage and runoff include pumping the additional runoff into existing canals to maintain the pre-development discharge conditions. Consequently, the Northside Alternative would not result in any additional flooding along Canal 14, Canal 19, or the Duncan Canal nor affect airport operations or other transportation facilities due to flooding. In compliance with Executive Order and the U.S. Department of Transportation Order , Floodplain Management and Protection, a floodplain alternatives analysis was conducted. This analysis concluded that the Proposed Action Alternative would not result in a significant encroachment because it would not: result in a high likelihood of loss of human life; have substantial, encroachment-associated costs or damage including interrupting service or loss of a vital transportation facility; or, result in notable adverse impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values. Although the Northside Alternative does not have the least floodplain impacts, it has been determined to be the most feasible and practicable alternative as it has the best balance between environmental, social, economic, and operational factors (see Appendix K) Mitigation and Best Management Practices Placing fill in a base floodplain adversely affects the floodplain s natural storage values and functions. This results in loss of water storage during the one percent chance annual flood, raising the base flood elevation, and causing flooding to areas outside the floodplain. Additionally, the floodplain provides the function of flood control, by slowing flood flows and retaining water, thereby lessening the probability of upstream or downstream flooding. Placing obstructions in the floodplain could adversely affect the floodplain s flood control. When evaluating losses in flood storage, local floodplain administrators may require a "no adverse effect" analysis to determine flood damage to other property a larger development project may cause. The analysis may involve detailed engineering using the hydraulic modeling software, Hydrologic Engineering Centers River Analysis System (HEC-RAS). 5-52

130 A preliminary strategy would involve pumping the additional runoff into existing canals to maintain the pre-development discharge conditions. As a result, no additional flooding along Canal 14, Canal 19, or the Duncan Canal would occur and no affect on airport operations or other transportation facilities due to flooding would occur. The floodplain administrator has concurred with the analyses contained in Appendix K (see Appendix B-7). There is no practicable alternative that would avoid floodplains. Therefore, adhering to floodplain development standards would be necessary to minimize unavoidable effects. Doing so would ensure none of the reasonable alternatives would cause increased base flood elevations. Doing so also would also minimize potential harm to the 100-year floodplain and not adversely affect natural and beneficial floodplain values. 5-53

131 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 5-54

132 5.8 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, POLLUTION PREVENTION, AND SOLID WASTE This section describes the hazardous materials that are used at, stored at, or transported to the Airport. It also describes the applicable laws and regulations and the impacts that would occur with the implementation of the No Action Alternative and the reasonable alternatives Background An airport s airside and landside operations use, transport, or generate various kinds of hazardous materials. For example, hazardous materials such as jet fuels are transported to the Airport by ground vehicles and on the airport by aircraft fueling trucks or via hydrant systems (see Section 4.8, Table 4-6, and Appendix L for information regarding hazardous materials sites in the Airport Study Area and in the Airport vicinity). In addition, airport construction and maintenance activities often use chemicals classified as hazardous materials. Various Federal, State, and local laws regulate the use, storage, transportation, or disposal of hazardous materials. These laws may extend to past, present, and future landowners of properties containing these materials. In addition, disrupting sites containing hazardous materials may create pathways that allow contaminants to effect human health and the environment. Applicable Federal requirements used to assess hazardous waste effects include: the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA); 37 the Oil Pollution Prevention Act of 1990; 38 the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA); 39 the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); 40 the Clean Water Act (CWA); 41 Executive Order 12088, Federal Compliance with Pollution Control Standards; 42 Executive Order 12856, Federal Compliance with Right-to-Know Laws and Pollution Prevention Requirements; 43 and Executive Order 12580, Superfund Implementation. 44 Note: Due to the number of Federal laws, and Executive Orders applicable to the proposed action, this Section presents only the legal citations or references for those requirements in lieu of summarizing their requirements. Please see FAA s Desk Reference, Chapter 10, Section 2, for more information on these requirements Regulatory Context Generally, the terms "hazardous wastes," "hazardous substances," and "hazardous materials" are associated with industrial wastes, petroleum products, dangerous goods or other contaminates. But, in a regulatory context, these terms have very precise and technical meanings that are used for consistency and legal purposes. The following paragraph discuss some of those terms U.S.C. Section U.S.C. Section U.S.C. Sections U.S.C. Section 6901 et. seq U.S.C. Sections No. 48 Federal Register, page 47707, Oct No. 58 Federal Register, page 41981, Aug No. 52 Federal Register, page 2923, Oct

133 Hazardous Wastes Subpart C, Hazardous Waste, of RCRA defines this term. Hazardous wastes (sometimes called characteristic wastes) are solid wastes that are ignitable, corrosive, reactive, or toxic. Examples include waste oil, mercury, lead or battery acid. In addition, Subpart D, Managing Non- Hazardous Municipal and Solid Waste, of RCRA contains a list of specific types of solid wastes that the EPA has deemed hazardous (sometimes called listed wastes). Examples include degreasing solvents, petroleum refining waste, or pharmaceutical waste. Hazardous Substances Section 101(14) of CERCLA defines this term broadly. It includes hazardous wastes, hazardous air pollutants, or hazardous substances designated as such under the CWA and TSCA and elements, compounds, mixtures, or environmental resources. It should be noted that, pursuant to CERCLA, hazardous substances do not include any petroleum or natural gas substances and materials. Examples include ammonia, bromine, chlorine, or sodium cyanide. Hazardous Materials According to 49 CFR Part 172, Hazardous Materials Table, Special Provisions, Hazardous Materials Communications, Emergency Response Information, Training Requirements, and Security Pads, hazardous materials are any substances commercially transported that pose unreasonable risk to public health, safety, and property. These substances include hazardous wastes and hazardous substances as well as petroleum and natural gas substances and materials. As a result, hazardous materials represent hazardous wastes and substances. Examples include household batteries, gasoline, or fertilizers. This EA uses the information in Chapter 13 of Federal Aviation Administration s (FAA) Desk Reference to determine project-related effects relative to hazardous materials in the Airport Study Area. That information is consistent with the requirements of FAA Order E, Change 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, Appendix A Thresholds of Significance FAA Order E, Change 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, Appendix A.10.3a states: Generally, additional information or analysis [regarding hazardous or solid waste] is needed only if problems are anticipated with respect to meeting the applicable local, state, tribal, or federal laws and regulations on hazardous or solid waste management. Additional data needed may include results of any further consultation with affected agencies and measures to be taken to minimize the impacts. Chapter 13, Section 7.a. of FAA s Desk Reference provides guidance on using information in the Environmental Consequences Section to determine the level of effect that would occur. If the Proposed Action or reasonable alternative involves a property on or eligible for the National Priority List (NPL), 45 the FAA recommends that any National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document disclose if presence of contamination within the within boundaries of the entire NPL site. This helps the decision maker (and reader) determine if there are areas within the site that are not contaminated (i.e., clean ). 45 The NPL is the list of areas throughout the United States and its territories that have had releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. The NPL s primary purpose is to guide the EPA in determining those sites warranting further investigation. 5-56

134 If the Airport would have difficulty meeting applicable, state, or Federal laws and regulations addressing hazardous wastes or hazardous materials, then the FAA recommends that any NEPA document disclose that difficulty. This helps the decision maker (and reader) determine if extraordinary measures are needed to mitigate project-related disturbances of contaminates that would endanger the health and/or safety of citizens (e.g., connecting the project area to a new water supply or moving local residents to avoid contamination). If there is an unresolved issue regarding hazardous materials, then FAA recommends that any NEPA document discuss how the Proposed Action or reasonable alternative would affect a site known or suspected to be contaminated. This informs the decision maker (and reader) that the effects of the contamination are not fully understood, but necessary corrective actions may be needed Environmental Consequences No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no increase in the use of hazardous materials or in the generation of hazardous wastes. The Airport would continue to be subject to all of the regulations associated with transport, storage, and use of existing hazardous materials. Also, no sites known or suspected to be contaminated in the Airport Study Area exist. Therefore, no disturbance of potential hazardous substance contamination would occur Refurbishment Alternative Implementation of the Refurbishment Alternative would cause short-term and temporary increases of hazardous materials resulting from construction activities. The short-term and temporary increases of hazardous materials would occur due to: the use of gasoline and diesel fuels by construction equipment; the use of diesel fuel by trucks and other equipment accessing the construction areas; and the storage of oils, fluids, and lubricants associated with the maintenance of construction equipment. In the event of accidents involving the release of hazardous materials, the construction contractor would implement a management plan that would address response and containment requirements. Those actions would comply with the Airport s standard operation procedures for the recovery and mitigation of hazardous materials. If this occurs, construction shall cease and the remediation would follow all local, state, and federal requirements, including contacting the National Response Center (NRC). Similar to the No Action Alternative, no sites known or suspected to be contaminated in the Airport Study Area exist and no disturbance of potential hazardous substance contamination would occur. The Airport would use centralized, temporary facilities to store fuel, oil, lubricants, and building materials during construction. That best practice would minimize public and environmental exposure to project-related hazardous materials Southside Alternative The impacts associated with the Southside Alternative would be similar to those discussed in the Refurbishment Alternative. 5-57

135 Westside Alternative The impacts associated with the Westside Alternative would be similar to those discussed in the Refurbishment Alternative. In addition, the terminal building associated with the Westside Alternative would be more than 30 feet from the existing fuel storage facilities that are west of the existing terminal building, which is the minimum distance required in accordance with Table (a) of National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code. The construction activity associated with the Westside Alternative could result in the discovery of contaminated soil and/or underground piping from old infrastructure. If this occurs, construction shall cease and the remediation would follow all local, state, and federal requirements, including contacting the NRC. Similar to the No Action Alternative, no sites known or suspected to be contaminated in the Airport Study Area exist and no disturbance of potential hazardous substance contamination would occur Northside Alternative (Sponsor s Proposed Action) The impacts associated with the Northside Alternative would be similar to those discussed in the Refurbishment Alternative. In addition, the construction activity associated with the Northside Alternative could result in the discovery of contaminated soil and/or underground piping from old infrastructure. If this occurs, construction shall cease and the remediation would follow all local, state, and federal requirements, including contacting the NRC. Similar to the No Action Alternative, no sites known or suspected to be contaminated in the Airport Study Area exist and no disturbance of potential hazardous substance contamination would occur Mitigation and Best Management Practices Best management practices would include a temporary area for construction equipment staging and maintenance. This best management practice would avoid and/or minimize potential, inadvertent, staging area releases of fuels, oils, and other contaminants to stormwater, soil and groundwater within the Airport Study Area. The temporary facility would comply with all State regulations regarding the storage and handling of fuel and oil. 5-58

136 5.9 HISTORIC, ARCHITECTURAL, ARCHEOLOGICAL, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES This section describes the historic, architectural, archeological, and cultural resources of national importance that occur in the Airport Study Area and the Regional Study Area, and the laws and regulations protecting those resources. The section also discloses how the No Action, Proposed Action and reasonable build alternatives would affect those resources and the measures to mitigate those effects Background The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, 46 as amended, establishes the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). The ACHP oversees Federal agency compliance with the NHPA. The NHPA also established the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), which the National Park Service (NPS) oversees. Other applicable statues include: The Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (AHPA); 47 The American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (AIRFA); 48 Executive Order 13007, 49 Indian Sacred Sites; Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. 50 Section 106 Section 106 of the NHPA requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on properties on or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Compliance with Section 106 requires consultation with the ACHP the Louisiana State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and/or the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) if there is a potential adverse effect to historic properties on or eligible for listing on the NRHP. Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (AHPA) This Act requires Federal agencies to survey, recover, and preserve significant archeologically important resources that Federally-approved or financed projects may destroy or cause irreparable harm. American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (AIRFA) AIRFA protects the rights of American Indians, Eskimos, Aleuts and Native Hawaiians to conduct traditional religious services without interference. In doing so, AIRFA preserves the following activities for those entities: access to sacred sites and freedom to worship on those sites through ceremonies and traditional rights; use of sacred objects during processions; elimination of interference with freedom to exercise Native religions; and U.S.C. Section 470 et.seq U.S.C Section U.S.C. Section Vol. 61 Federal Register, page 26771, May Vol. 36 Federal Register, page 8921, May

137 accommodating access to and use of religious sites provided the access does not interfere with an agency s essential functions Regulatory Context For purposes of this Environmental Assessment (EA), historic, archaeological, and cultural resources are districts, sites, buildings, structures, objects, landscapes, and Native American Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) that are on or eligible for listing on the NRHP. Such NRHP properties are nationally important due to their significant and respective roles in American history, prehistory, architecture, archaeology, engineering and culture. Regulations at 36 CFR Part 800 et.seq. provide detailed instructions to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and other Federal agencies on how to assess and address effects on those historically significant properties. The analysis contained in this EA also represents concurrent compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA Methodology Regulations at 36 CFR Part 800, Protection of Historic Properties, et seq. implement Section 106 of the NHPA. FAA Order E, Change 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, Appendix A, Section 11.2b sets forth the FAA s responsibilities in complying the Section 106 concurrently with NEPA as documented in the NEPA document. These responsibilities are: Defining an undertaking FAA must determine whether the Proposed Action is an undertaking as defined in 36 CFR (y). For this project, FAA has determined the proposed terminal project is an undertaking because: FAA must unconditionally approve changes to the existing Airport Layout Plan to show the relocated/rehabilitated/expanded terminal; and FAA will decide whether Airport Improvement Program funding may be used to carry out the airside portion of that project. Area of Potential Effect The FAA must determine whether the Proposed Action is the type of activity that has the potential to cause adverse effects on historic properties listed on or eligible for listing on the NRHP. To do so, FAA must identify the Area of Potential Effect (APE), that is, the geographical area the proposed undertaking would directly or indirectly affect. FAA determines the APE in consultation with the SHPO (36 CFR 800.4). The APE is the same as the Regional Study Area (see Figure 4-1). The FAA submitted the APE for comment to the Louisiana SHPO and the Louisiana SHPO concurred with the APE (see Appendix B-8). NRHP-eligible properties After defining the APE, FAA must determine if properties in the APE are on or eligible for inclusion in the NRHP (36 CFR 800.4(b)). To do so, FAA reviews the NRPH for properties already listed. In addition, FAA examines properties that are unique and/or older than 50 years. In consultation with the SHPO, FAA reviews the characteristics of those properties relative to criteria in 36 CFR Part 63. Those properties that meet those criteria in FAA s and the SHPO s opinions are deemed eligible for listing in the NRHP. If the FAA or SHPO disagree on a 5-60

138 property s eligibility, the Secretary of the Interior will make the final determination about the property s eligibility for listing on the NRHP (36 CFR (c)(2)). No effect determination If the FAA determines that an undertaking does not have the potential to affect historic properties, and the SHPO agrees, FAA may issue a determination that the Proposed Action has no effect 36 CFR 800.4(d). No adverse effect determination If the undertaking would affect a NRHP-listed or eligible resource, the FAA must determine the extent of the effect on the protected resource relative to the characteristics that made the resource eligible for the NRHP. FAA does so in consultation with the SHPO pursuant to 36 CFR 800(5). FAA would issue a No Adverse Effect Finding for an undertaking that would not alter the characteristics that made the affected resource eligible for the NRHP (36 CFR 800.5(b)). Adverse effect determination An undertaking would cause an adverse effect when it alters a historic property s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association (36 CFR 800.5(1) and (2)). To cause an adverse effect, the undertaking would: physically destroy, damage, or alter all or part of the property; isolate the property from its setting, if the setting contributes to the property s qualification for the NRHP; alter the visual, audible, or atmospheric characters of the property, if the setting contributes to the property s qualification for the NRHP; cause neglect of the property resulting in the property s deterioration or destruction; or involve a transfer, lease, or sale of the property. Memorandum of Agreement Undertakings having an adverse effect require FAA to prepare a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) (36 CFR 800.6(c)). FAA does so in consultation with the SHPO and other interested consulting parties (36 CFR 800.6(a)(2). The MOA describes how the FAA and other parties would resolve the adverse effects through mitigation or other means. This EA uses the regulations noted above and others in 36 CFR 800. As part of the cultural investigation, a Phase 1 Cultural Resources Survey was conducted for the APE to identify possible archaeological sites (see Appendix C). The area included in the Phase 1 Cultural Resources Survey focuses on the north side of the Airport in the area under consideration for the Northside Alternative. The FAA has concluded the consultation process with the Louisiana SHPO and all findings for this project are incorporated into this analysis Threshold of Significance FAA Order E, Change 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, Appendix A.11, Section 11.3, notes an adverse effect does not automatically trigger a significant impact (36 CFR 800.8(a)) and preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS). Instead, FAA, after consulting with the SHPO and other interested parties, determines the level of effect and if that effect warrants preparation of an EIS. In making that decision, FAA may consult with the ACHP. 5-61

139 5.9.2 Environmental Consequences As explained below, the FAA has determined that no known historic properties would be affected by implementation of the any of the alternatives, including the Sponsor s Proposed Action (Northside Alternative). The Louisiana SHPO has concurred with the FAA s determination (see Appendix B-8) Definition of the APE For this undertaking, the FAA has determined the APE to be co-extensive with the Regional Study Area (see Figure 4-1). The Louisiana SHPO has concurred with this definition of the APE (see Appendix B-8) Identification of Resources The only property listed on the NRHP present within the APE is the Raziano House, located about 0.7 miles southeast of the existing terminal building (see Figure 4-8). A Phase I cultural resources survey was performed in April 2013 for the Sponsor s Proposed Action (Northside Alternative) (see Appendix C). That document examined areas of potential effect in the vicinity of that alternative. The archaeological investigation discovered no sites, and the architectural investigation identified no structures greater than fifty years of age. The report concluded that the proposed action would have no effect on historic resources within these Areas of Potential Effect, and the FAA subsequently has determined the same. The Louisiana SHPO has concurred with this FAA determination (see Appendix B-8). Even though the APE includes the existing terminal building, which is more than 50 years old, the FAA has determined that the terminal is not eligible for listing on the NRHP (see Appendix B-8). Only a relatively small portion of the existing terminal facilities within the APE is over 50 years of age. That portion of the facility is commonly referred to as the parabola and east ticketing lobby, which was constructed in The FAA has evaluated the building and does not believe that it is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as it does not meet any of the four criteria for evaluation as discussed in Appendix B-8. This determination is briefly summarized here: Criterion A: Association with an important event or trend The portion of the terminal building known as the parabola does not have a strong connection to any important events or trends. While the terminal was involved in Hurricane Katrina recovery efforts, in perspective those efforts involved the airport as a whole. As such, the terminal is not associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. Criterion B: Association with an important person The has no strong connection to significant persons of the past. While John Moisant was a significant figure in aviation history, his 1910 death in Kenner, Louisiana occurred well prior to the construction of the airport s buildings in In 1960 the Airport was renamed New Orleans International Airport. The Airport was 5-62

140 renamed again in 2001 for Louis Armstrong, a famous local jazz musician, on his 100th birthday. Criterion C: Significance for Design or Construction While the original architecture and construction of the terminal was indicative of the period, it was not indicative of significant airport terminal design at the time. The original construction materials and methods utilized for this building were neither innovative nor unique. Additionally, the structure has been modified greatly with the inclusion of interior offices, rehabilitated lighting and the inclusion of exterior canopies. These modifications have caused the building to lose its ability to represent mid-century modernism. Criterion D: Ability to Convey information of significance There is no indication that there is any significant historic information yielded from this building or ever will be. The FAA has received concurrence from the Louisiana SHPO on its finding with regard to the terminal (see AppendixB-8) Analysis of Potential Impacts No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, no construction would occur in the APE; however, surface maintenance activities (i.e., mowing) would continue as required. Because no known cultural resources exist at the Airport, the No Action Alternative would not affect any known historic, architectural, archaeological, or cultural resources Refurbishment Alternative Implementation of the Refurbishment Alternative would occur on property already disturbed by earlier Airport development. Therefore, since the Raziano House is about 0.7 miles southeast of the existing terminal building, the potential earth-moving, modernization, construction, and operational activities associated with the Refurbishment Alternative would not affect any properties on or eligible for listing on the NRHP. If project-related earth-moving activities uncover any artifacts, the construction contractor should follow the best management practices outlined in Section discussing unanticipated discovery of artifacts. Based on the distance from the area where the Refurbishment Alternative would be constructed and the Raziano House, the Refurbishment Alternative is not expected to affect any known historic, architectural, archaeological, or cultural resources Southside Alternative Implementation of the Southside Alternative would occur on property already disturbed by earlier Airport development. Therefore, since the Raziano House is about 0.7 miles southeast of the existing terminal building, the potential earth-moving, modernization, construction, and operational activities associated with the Refurbishment Alternative would not affect any properties on or eligible for listing on the NRHP. If project-related earth-moving activities uncover any artifacts, the construction contractor should follow the best management practices outlined in Section discussing unanticipated discovery of artifacts. 5-63

141 Based on the distance from the area where the Southside Alternative would be constructed and the Raziano House, the Southside Alternative is not expected to affect any known historic, architectural, archaeological, or cultural resources Westside Alternative This Alternative would occur on property already disturbed by previous Airport development unrelated to this undertaking. The Westside Alternative s abandonment of the existing terminal, demolition of Concourse D, and its earth-moving and operations activities would not affect the Raziano House because of the distance between the Westside Alternative and the Raziano House is more than 0.7 miles. If project-related earth-moving activities uncover any artifacts, the construction contractor should follow the best management practices outlined in Section discussing unanticipated discovery of artifacts. Based on the distance from the area where the Westside Alternative would be constructed and the Raziano House, the Westside Alternative is not expected to affect any known historic, architectural, archaeological, or cultural resources Northside Alternative (Sponsor s Proposed Action) The Northside Alternative would result in the development of a new terminal building, ancillary facilities, and new access roads to the new terminal building on the north side of the Airport. The Northside Alternative would result in the demolition of Concourse A. The remaining terminal building and concourses are planned to remain as the location of NOAB administrative functions, the Emergency Operations Center, and serve potential charter flights. The only NRHP-listed property within the APE is the Raziano House, which is about 0.7 miles southeast of Concourse A. The Northside Alternative s potential earth-moving activities would occur on previously disturbed land. In addition, excavations for the new terminal and ancillary facilities would disturb subsurface depths of the APE not previously disturbed. However, based on the results of the Phase 1 Cultural Survey, these excavations are not expected to affect any known sensitive historic or archeological resources (see Appendix C). The FAA has completed consultation with the Louisiana SHPO on the defined APE and the results of the Cultural Survey. In addition, if project-related earth-moving activities uncover any artifacts, the construction contractor should follow the best management practices outlined in Section discussing unanticipated discovery of artifacts. Based on the distance from the area where the Northside Alternative would be constructed and the Raziano House, the Northside Alternative is not expected to affect any known historic, architectural, archaeological, or cultural resources Mitigation and Best Management Practices Experience has shown that construction activities sometimes uncover unanticipated artifacts. The following measures will be implemented if such unanticipated discoveries occur during construction. The measures discuss how to address human remains and artifacts. The FAA, as the lead Federal agency responsible for complying with Section 106 requirements, will require the Airport Sponsor to implement the measures discussed below in consultation with the SHPO. Contact with tribal representatives may also be necessary to comply with Section 106 requirements. The FAA and the Airport Sponsor will be responsible for restricting all construction activity in the immediate vicinity of the human remains until treatment is complete. 5-64

142 Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains Notification procedures If human remains are discovered during project activities, work within 100 feet of the discovery shall be redirected and the Jefferson Parish Coroner should be notified by the Airport. Immediately thereafter, the Jefferson Parish Coroner will notify the FAA, the Airport Sponsor, and the SHPO. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification. The Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. At the same time, an archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior s Professional Qualifications Standards for Archeology (36 CFR Part 61), should be contacted by the Airport to assess the situation and consult with the Coroner. If necessary, that consultation shall include the MLD. Results of that consultation shall be immediately reported to the FAA, the Airport Sponsor, and SHPO. Field procedures Project personnel shall not collect or move any human remains and associated materials. No project activity shall occur in the 100-foot exclusion area around the discovery until the Coroner has finished his/her analysis. In addition, the following procedures must occur: The archaeologist or the Lead Environmental Inspector (LEI) will stop excavation immediately and notify their supervisors immediately. No bones or associated artifacts will be removed until further notice. A reasonable effort will be made to protect human remains from further damage or intrusion. The archaeologist will direct that all ground disturbing activity within 100 feet of the find be stopped until notified in writing from the Airport that work can recommence. The area of the remains will be clearly marked with flagging or safety fencing and guarded as needed. The field supervisor(s) will immediately notify the FAA Project Manager and Airport Sponsor (during construction, restoration, and remediation) of the work stoppage. The archaeologist will complete on-ground evaluation of the find within 24 hours of the work stoppage, if possible. If the archaeologist determines the human remains are not obviously prehistoric in nature (e.g., in direct association with prehistoric artifacts), the archaeologist or LEI will report the discovery to the New Orleans Police Department and the City of Kenner coroner or other officer so the appropriate authorities can inspect the site and determine if a criminal investigation is necessary. If the archaeologist cannot make a reasonable assessment of the discovery, then a physical anthropologist or bio-archaeologist will be called in to identify whether the remains are of Native American or other ancestry. This may involve uncovering the remains, if the necessary measurements cannot be taken in the field. It also may be necessary to expand the excavation to facilitate viewing the skeleton in situ and determine the context in which it was found. Full excavation and/or removal of the 5-65

143 remains will not occur until the appropriate Native American or other appropriate representative is notified and has had an opportunity to comment. Removal and reburial or other appropriate treatment options will be discussed with the appropriate representative. Any field methodology proposed will be conducted in consultation the Louisiana SHPO. Tables of skeletal attributes, and/or computer programs such as FORDISC, should be consulted to compare the skeletal measurements with existing human populations. If the measurements match those for Native American populations, or if there is doubt as to ancestry, they will be assumed to be Native American. Human remains found within prehistoric contexts will be assumed to be Native American, unless skeletal or site information strongly suggests otherwise. For Native American remains, the FAA, in consultation with the Louisiana SHPO, will notify the designated Tribal monitor(s) as soon as a determination is made. Upon completion of the above duties, the archaeologist shall prepare a report documenting the methods and results. The report will provide recommendations for the treatment of the human remains and any associated cultural materials, as appropriate. As appropriate, the archeologist shall prepare the report in coordination with the recommendations of the MLD Unanticipated Discovery of Other Artifacts In the event that non-human remains are discovered during earth moving activities, work will be temporarily suspended within 25 feet of the artifact. This will allow qualified personnel to monitor the recovery of the archaeological artifact and determine if further investigation is necessary. No work in that area shall resume until after the archaeologist has inspected and evaluated the deposit and determined the appropriate course of action. Project personnel shall not collect or move any archaeological materials, until authorized by the archaeologist. At the direction of the archaeologist, the New Orleans Aviation Board (NOAB) shall contact the Louisiana SHPO and develop and implement an approach for the treatment of the discovery. The assessment of the finding s significance, the potential that it will be affected, and the development of potential treatment approaches shall occur through discussions and exchanges of information with Louisiana SHPO and any other appropriate parties. Upon completing the assessment and treating any found artifacts, the archaeologist shall prepare a report documenting the methods and results. The reports shall provide recommendations for any necessary additional study. The report shall be submitted to the NOAB and FAA. 5-66

144 5.10 LIGHT EMISSIONS AND VISUAL IMPACTS This section qualitatively describes the effect of light emissions and visual effects of the reasonable alternatives to light-sensitive areas Background Analysis of light emissions and visual effects is assessed when a project introduces new lighting (e.g., buildings, airfield lighting, navigational aids, etc.) that may affect residential and other light-sensitive areas. A special study is recommended only in unusual circumstances in which the effect of light emissions is considered sufficient (e.g., when high density strobe lights shine directly into a residence). Airfield lighting (e.g., navigational aids, runway and taxiway edge lighting, signage, etc.) would not change as a result of implementing one of the reasonable build alternatives described within this document. Therefore, light emissions and visual impacts from these sources would not change and have not been assessed. Potential light emissions and visual effects associated with the reasonable build alternatives include a qualitative assessment of illuminating a new terminal building, entrance and exit access roads, directional signage, automobile parking garage and lots, and apron lighting for the safe movement of vehicles and pedestrians Regulatory Context There is no federal statutory or regulatory requirement for adverse effects resulting from light emissions or visual impacts. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Order E, Change 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, requires the FAA to consider the extent to which any lighting associated with a proposed action would create an annoyance among people in the vicinity or interfere with normal activities. The FAA Order states that potential light emissions should be evaluated to determine the extent to which a proposed action would result in light emissions that create an annoyance among people in the vicinity or interfere with normal activities. 51 Therefore, proposed lighting impacts are evaluated on a contextual basis in terms of potential for the impairment of light-sensitive land uses and human annoyance. FAA Order E, Change 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures also explains that visual or aesthetic effects are inherently more difficult to define because of the subjectivity involved. Public involvement and consultation with appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies and tribes may help determine the extent of these impacts Methodology In October 2012, environmental specialists conducted a field investigation of the Regional Study Area. The field investigation included visually assessing the current view sheds of the Kenner residential area, north of the Airport. Scoping meetings also were conducted in October 2012 with nearby residents, government agencies, and the general public to identify any local concerns associated with the Proposed Action (see Appendix J). Figure 5-8 shows the existing street views within this residential neighborhood looking south toward the Airport. 51 FAA, Order E, Change 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, March 20,

145 The potential light emissions and visual effects of the reasonable alternatives were then qualitatively evaluated and compared to the No Action Alternative. This effort provided a way to identify potential new sources of lighting, glare, and visual effects on light-sensitive land uses that could result in annoyance to local residents Thresholds of Significance There are no special purpose laws that identify thresholds of significance for light emissions or visual effects. Proposed light emission effects are evaluated primarily in terms of potential for human annoyance. FAA Order E, Change 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, requires the FAA consider the extent to which any lighting associated with a proposed action would create an annoyance among residents in the vicinity of a proposed action or interfere with normal activities. Potential aesthetic effects of an action are generally assessed to the extent that the development contrasts with the No Acton Alternative environmental setting and whether a jurisdictional agency considers this contrast objectionable. For this document, visual effects resulting from constructing and operating the reasonable build alternatives include physical changes to the visually aesthetic qualities of the Airport Study Area, including landforms, vegetation, and water surfaces. Effects may also include those resulting from actions which may have both beneficial and detrimental effects Environmental Consequences The potential light emission and visual effects of the No Action Alternative and reasonable alternatives are discussed in this section No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative assumes no improvements would be made at New Orleans International Airport (MSY or Airport). Thus, there would be no change to light emissions or visual effects with the No Action Alternative and no change to light emissions on surrounding residential land uses would occur Refurbishment Alternative The Refurbishment Alternative assumes that the only improvements to be made at the Airport would be the development of a long-term surface parking lot on the north side of the Airport, the development of a long-term parking lot west of the existing terminal building and south of the consolidated rental car facility, and minor changes to the existing terminal building and concourses for maintenance, security, or safety reasons. Light Emissions The development of long-term surface parking lots would include security lighting. For the longterm surface parking lot on the north side of the Airport, these lights may be visible to the Kenner residents; however, existing trees and vegetation would obscure the majority of lights. The security lighting associated with the long-term parking lot on the south side of the Airport would not be visible from any light-sensitive land uses. In addition, the improvements associated with the existing terminal building would not cause any changes in lighting. Thus, no substantive impacts to light-sensitive land uses would occur. 5-68

146 Figure 5-8 STREET VIEWS WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD NORTH OF THE AIRPORT Source: RS&H,

147 Visual Effects Because any changes at the Airport are associated with aviation-related operations, the views of the Airport from off-site locations would not be substantially modified. The long-term surface parking lot on the north side of the Airport could be visible to motorists on Aberdeen Street depending on the density of trees and vegetative buffers. This view would not be substantially different than the view of the parking lot and apron associated with general aviation operations on the north side of the Airport. The long-term parking lot immediately west of the existing shortterm parking garage on the south side of the Airport would be visible to motorists on Airline Drive. However, a surface parking lot in this location would not substantially change the typical view from Airline Drive of the Airport. Thus, even with the potential development of these two parking lots, no adverse changes to the visual character of the Airport would occur. Summary No adverse light emissions or visual effects would be associated with the Refurbished Alternative and no effect on surrounding residential land uses would occur Southside Alternative The construction and operation of the Southside Alternative includes the demolition and reconstruction of Concourses B and C. A long-term surface parking lot would be constructed west of the existing short-term parking garage and a long-term surface parking lot would be constructed on the north side of the Airport. In addition, this Alternative would include improvements to the terminal loop roadway. The Southside Alternative would result in many construction activities such as cement mixing, parking, equipment storage, access roads, vehicle staging, and temporary infrastructure designed to accommodate construction crews. Buildings, parking areas, and access roads associated with the Southside Alternative would require new lighting features and would visually differ from the No Action Alternative. This change in light emissions and visual features would occur primarily south of the Airport. Light Emissions If construction activities occurred during nighttime hours, the Southside Alternative would require construction lighting. If construction activities occur during nighttime hours, they would be temporary and restricted to the Airport Study Area. While construction equipment has the potential to create glare during daytime hours, these effects rarely constitute a light emission impact and would be negligible due to the lack of light-sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the Southside Alternative. The addition of the long-term surface parking lots, as well as associated access roads, would slightly increase the number of landside lighting features on existing Airport property. However, these additional light sources would not result in a substantial increase to the Airport s overall light emissions. Therefore, compared to the No Action Alternative, construction and operation of the Southside Alternative would not result in adverse light emissions on light-sensitive land uses or cause human annoyance. 5-70

148 Visual Effects Additional construction truck traffic would occur along Airline Drive. If nighttime construction associated with the Southside Alternative occurs, it would be temporary and would not visually intrude on local residences because intervening buffers would shield the visual effects. The visual effects associated with the remote surface parking lot and the long-term parking lot would be the same as those described for the Refurbishment Alternative. Summary The Southside Alternative would not adversely affect adverse residential or other light-sensitive or visually-sensitive land uses in the Airport Study Area Westside Alternative The Westside Alternative would involve the construction and operation of a new terminal building to the west of the existing terminal building and improvements to the terminal loop roadway to provide access to the new terminal. A concrete apron would be constructed, along with a short-term parking garage immediately south of new terminal, a long-term surface parking lot south of the new short-term garage, and a long-term surface parking lot on the north side of the Airport. The current air cargo area would be relocated to the northern portion of the Airport, directly south of existing industrial and commercial land uses. Light Emissions If construction activities occurred during nighttime hours the Westside Alternative would require construction lighting. If construction activities occur during nighttime hours, they would be temporary and restricted to the Airport Study Area. While construction equipment has the potential to create glare during daytime hours, these effects rarely constitute a light emission impact and would be negligible due to the lack of lightsensitive land uses south of the proposed new terminal. However, the existing vegetative buffer and industrial and commercial land uses in the area would reduce project-related lighting effects on light-sensitive land uses in the Kenner neighborhood, which would be approximately 1,500 feet north of the relocated cargo facilities. As a result, the project s light emissions would not disrupt local neighborhoods. Facility lighting would extend to the west with the development of the new terminal building. The addition of the short-term garage and long-term surface parking lots, as well as associated access roads, would slightly increase the number of landside lighting features on existing Airport property. However, these additional sources of lights would not result in substantial increases to the Airport s overall light emissions. The Kenner residential neighborhood would receive limited light emissions from the operation of the relocated cargo facilities due to the existing industrial and commercial land uses, vegetation buffer, and Canal 14. Lighting for the relocated cargo facilities would illuminate the interior and exterior of the facility. Automobile parking areas would be lighted with directional and focused lighting for the safe movement of vehicles and pedestrians. The new access roads would include lighted signage and roadway post lights that would result in light emissions, but those directional and focused emissions would not adversely affect the neighborhood. 5-71

149 Visual Effects Additional construction truck traffic would occur along Airline Drive for the new terminal and along Loyola Drive/Aberdeen Street and Veterans Memorial Boulevard for the relocated cargo facilities. If nighttime construction associated with the relocated cargo facilities occurs, it would be temporary. Intervening buffers would block or reduce the intensities of those light emissions on local residences. Operation of the relocated cargo facilities associated with the Westside Alternative would not cause adverse visual impact effects to area residences. In addition, due to the lack of residential land uses and current urban setting south of Airline Drive, visual effects of a new terminal building on visually-sensitive land uses would not occur. Summary Compared to the No Action Alternative, construction and operation of the Westside Alternative would not reach levels that would adversely affect light-sensitive land uses or cause human annoyance. In addition, the Westside Alternative would not cause any adverse visual effects on residential or other visually-sensitive land uses Northside Alternative (Sponsor s Proposed Action) The Northside Alternative would involve constructing a new terminal and ancillary facilities on the north side of the Airport. The new terminal building would be located in the northeastern portion of Airport property, south of the existing industrial and commercial area. Long-term and employee parking lots would be constructed west of the new terminal building. A second longterm parking lot would be constructed east of the new terminal building and a short-term parking garage would be constructed north of the new terminal. Access to the new terminal would be from a boulevard constructed along the Loyola Drive/Aberdeen Street right-of-way. This would entail widening these roadways and building a visual barrier / noise barrier wall along the rightof-way. A secondary access for trucks and delivery vehicles would be constructed along the Bainbridge Street right-of-way. The Northside Alternative would result in many construction activities such as cement mixing, parking, equipment storage, access roads, vehicle staging, and temporary infrastructure designed to accommodate construction crews. The Northside Alternative would include trimming, clearing, and grubbing in the area where the terminal would be constructed. The existing vegetative buffer immediately south of Canal 14 and Lockheed Drive would be maintained to provide screening of the terminal and ancillary facilities from the residential neighborhood. Buildings, parking areas, and access roads associated with the Northside Alternative would require new lighting features and would visually differ from the No Action Alternative. This change in light emissions and visual features would occur primarily north of the Airport. Areas to the south and east of the Airport would not experience a substantial change in light emission and/or visual impacts because of the relocation of the terminal facility. Therefore, implementation of the Northside Alternative would not produce adverse changes in light emissions and/or visual impacts to these areas as discussed below. Light Emissions If construction activities occurred during nighttime hours the Northside Alternative would require construction lighting. If construction activities occur during nighttime hours, they would be 5-72

150 temporary and restricted to the Airport Study Area. However, due to the vegetative buffer and industrial and commercial land uses to light-sensitive land uses in the Kenner neighborhood (approximately 1,500 feet north of the Northside Alternative) it is not anticipated that construction equipment would cause highly annoying or disruptive, temporary light emissions. While construction equipment has the potential to create glare during daytime hours, these effects rarely constitute a light emission impact. Existing vegetative buffers would reduce annoying glare to nearby light-sensitive land uses, if nighttime construction occurs. The Kenner residential neighborhood would experience limited light emissions from the operation of a new north terminal and parking areas. This is because existing industrial and commercial land uses, vegetation buffer, and Canal 14 would block much of those emissions. Lighting for the new terminal would illuminate the interior and exterior of the terminal. The new automobile parking areas would be lighted with directional and focused lighting for the safe movement of vehicle and pedestrians. The new access roads would include lighted signage and roadway post lights that would result in light emissions but those directional and focused emissions would not adversely affect the neighborhood. During the scoping process, no comments were received from the residents of the neighborhood north of the Airport regarding negative light emission impacts from the new terminal. The only comments regarding lighting were that the residents desired additional lighting in their neighborhood for safety purposes. Compared to the No Action Alternative, construction and operation of the Northside Alternative would not result in annoying or disruptive light emissions. Visual Effects Additional construction truck traffic would occur along Loyola Drive/Aberdeen Street and Veterans Memorial Boulevard. If nighttime construction associated with the Northside Alternative occurs, it would be temporary and is not expected to be visually intrusive to local residences because intervening buffers would shield or reduce the visual effects. The Kenner neighborhood would have limited visibility to the operations of the proposed new terminal and access roadways due to existing vegetation buffer and industrial land uses. While new parking lots would be constructed along Lockheed Drive and Boeing Lane, these lots would remain at ground level and not exceed the height of the existing vegetation buffer, thereby negating or reducing visual effects on nearby Kenner residents. Additionally, the noise barrier walls along the Loyola Drive/Aberdeen Street access road would landscaped with new vegetation to make the corridor more aesthetically pleasing to neighborhood residents and Airport passengers. Therefore, compared to the No Action Alternative, construction and operation of the Northside Alternative would not cause annoying or disruptive visual effects on area residences. Summary Compared to the No Action Alternative, construction and operation of the Northside Alternative would not result in adverse light emissions to light-sensitive land uses or cause human annoyance. In addition, the Northside Alternative would not result in any annoying or disruptive visual effects on residential land uses Mitigation and Best Management Practices This section describes the potential mitigation measures and best management practices for the reasonable build alternatives. The design and architecture of any reasonable alternative can be 5-73

151 a proactive measure to recognize and reflect the New Orleans area s notable cultural or ethnic assets. During the environmental review process, agencies having jurisdiction or special use expertise on various light-sensitive resources may provide input addressing potential lighting or visual effects on specific resources. Those communications may include recommended measures to mitigate potential light emission or visual effects Light Emissions As appropriate, all lighting fixtures could include directional shielding, hooding, or sconces to enhance landside and roadway lighting, while reducing glare to adjacent areas. The access to the new terminal from Interstate 10 associated with the Northside Alternative would include constructing a visual and noise barrier wall along the Loyola Drive/Aberdeen Street right-of-way. This visual and noise barrier wall could limit the effects of light emissions from roadway lamp posts and vehicular traffic to the adjacent Kenner neighborhood Visual Effects Measures could be implemented during the design and construction phases to minimize the terminal s visual effects. This could include specific landscaping and architectural treatments, and decorative exterior coatings. Building designs and landscape architecture could complement the surrounding Airport environment. Any of the reasonable alternatives would be designed based on the diverse cultural and ethnic assets of the City of Kenner s community. Public involvement and consultation with local stakeholders and agencies would help formulate the architectural design or other aesthetic features of the selected alternative. 5-74

152 5.11 NATURAL RESOURCES, ENERGY SUPPLY, AND SUSTAINABLE DESIGN This section describes the natural resource and energy supply needs associated with the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action, and the reasonable alternatives. The section also discusses sources of sustainable design ideas to reduce the natural resource and energy demands of those actions Background The Federal government encourages airport development that minimizes the use of consumable natural resources and minimizes demands on energy supplies. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) policy also encourages developing facilities that use the highest design standards and that incorporate sustainable designs Regulatory Context To comply with Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section (e) and (f), this Environmental Assessment (EA) evaluates project-related potential effects on natural resources and local energy supplies in the Regional Study Area. The Regional Study Area is the appropriate geographic scope for this analysis because construction activity with any of the alternatives would occur within the Regional Study Area and none of the alternatives would result in any changes to aircraft operations. Sustainable design practices should be considered to reduce natural resource and energy supply demands Methodology Natural Resources FAA Order E, Change 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, Appendix A, Section 13.2a notes that in FAA National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents, the use of natural resources other than for fuel need to be examined only when an action involves a need for unusual materials or those in short supply. Examples of this would be: an airport terminal that would use large volumes of water to serve passenger needs; or constructing a runway that would require large volumes of concrete that would strain local or regional concrete supplies. Section 13.2a notes that such instances are rare. Fuel Supply Changes in the volumes of jet fuel or aviation fuel a project would require must be examined for projects involving changes in airside operations. This examination provides the information needed to properly disclose how those changes would alter existing jet fuel demands and supplies. Sustainable Design Various references discuss sustainable design and sustainable practices to reduce aviationrelated demands on natural resource and energy supplies. Two of the most useful references FAA recognizes are: 5-75

153 The Airports Cooperative Research Program Synthesis 10, Airport Sustainability Practices; and The Sustainable Aviation Guidance Alliance Database Threshold of Significance FAA Order E, Change 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, Appendix A, Section 13.2b notes that for most projects, changes in energy demands or other natural resource consumption will not result in significant impacts. Absent problems such as demands exceeding supply, it may be assumed impacts are not significant Environmental Consequences No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would result in the continued maintenance of the existing terminal facility using consumable materials available in and beyond the Airport Study Area. Energy use would not change as a result of the No Action Alternative. Thus, no change in the use of energy or natural resources at the New Orleans International Airport (Airport) would occur Refurbishment Alternative The Refurbishment Alternative would temporarily increase the use of consumable materials with improvements to the terminal, and the expansion of parking and ancillary facilities on the Airport. Energy used to implement the Refurbishment Alternative would be temporary and primarily focused on fuel to operate construction-vehicles and equipment and building materials. Currently, there are adequate supplies of consumable materials and energy to implement the Refurbishment Alternative. Since the need for consumable materials and energy would be met by existing resources, the temporary increase in such resources over the period of construction would not result in a significant impact in the use of energy supply or natural resources. Modifications to the existing terminal and its support systems would include sustainable design elements. Those elements would reduce energy consumption and reduce possible greenhouse gas emissions. Project design would select sustainable measures noted in The Airports Cooperative Research Program Synthesis 10 document, Airport Sustainability Practices, and The Sustainable Aviation Guidance Alliance (SAGA) database. Elements noted in those references include but are not limited to pre-conditioned air, innovative power supply systems, and energy efficient lighting and equipment. Future energy and supply levels would satisfy operation and maintenance of the refurbished terminal. In terms of aircraft operations, no changes to aircraft movement would occur on the airside. Thus, there would be no additional increase in aircraft fuel consumption. There would be a slight shift in vehicular traffic, as Airport visitors use the long-term surface parking lot via existing Aberdeen Street and a new, long-term parking lot south of the consolidated rental car facility, accessed via the existing terminal loop road. However, these shifts in vehicular movement would not cause significant changes in vehicular fuel consumption compared to existing conditions at the Airport. 5-76

154 Southside Alternative The Southside Alternative would temporarily increase the use of consumable materials with the redevelopment of the terminal, improvements to terminal access roads, parking facilities, apron space, and ancillary, on-airport facilities. The Southside Alternative would include sustainable design elements to reduce energy consumption and possible greenhouse gas emissions. The Airports Cooperative Research Program Synthesis 10 and the SAGA provide information on the sustainable design elements the Southside Alternative would incorporate. In addition, the Southside Alternative may use debris resulting from razing portions of the existing terminal as fill, or it may recycle concrete, pavement, or steel resulting from modifying portions of the airfield s taxiway and apron system. More efficient climate-control and other energy-demanding equipment would be part of the new terminal s sustainable design. Current and future supplies of consumable materials and energy are and will be available to build the Southside Alternative. Therefore, its construction would not cause temporary, significant short-term impacts on energy supplies or natural resources. Future energy and natural resource supply levels would satisfy operation and maintenance of the Southside Alternative. In terms of aircraft operations, no changes to aircraft movement would occur on the airside. Thus, there would be no additional increase in aircraft fuel consumption. However, there would be slight shifts in vehicular traffic, as some Airport users would park in the long-term surface parking lot on the north side of the Airport. Overall, the use of this parking area would not significantly alter vehicular fuel consumption compared to the existing conditions at the Airport Westside Alternative The Westside Alternative would temporarily increase the use of consumable materials with the redevelopment of the terminal, and improvements to terminal access roads, parking facilities, apron space, and ancillary facilities on the Airport. Since the need for consumable materials and energy would be met by existing resources, the temporary increase in such resources over the period of construction would not result in a significant impact in the use of energy supply or natural resources. The Westside Alternative would include sustainable design elements to reduce its energy consumption and possible greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, debris from project-related demolition of taxiways or aprons could be reused to rebuild portions of the modified taxiways and aprons the Westside Alternative includes. This alternative may use debris resulting from razing Concourse D of the old terminal as fill. To further reduce its impact, the Westside Alternative may use recycled concrete, pavement, or steel that would result from project-related changes to the airfield s taxiways and aprons. As a result, the temporary demand on fuel and building supplies associated with the Westside Alternative would be reduced. In addition, more modern and efficient climate-control and other energy-demanding equipment would be part of the new terminal s sustainable design. Using these and other sustainable efforts would ensure future energy and natural resource supply levels would satisfy the operation and maintenance of the Westside Alternative. As a result, operating the Westside Alternative would not significantly affect energy supplies or natural resources. 5-77

155 In terms of aircraft operations, minor changes in cargo aircraft movement would occur due to moving commercial aircraft slightly west of the existing terminal and relocating the existing cargo facilities to the north side of the Airport. However, these minor shifts would not substantially change the Airport s aircraft-related fuel consumption. Finally, there would be a slight shift in vehicular traffic from the south side to the north side of the Airport. This shift would occur as some Airport users choose to use the long-term surface parking lot accessed via existing Aberdeen Street. This partial shift in vehicular movement, coupled with the use of the new short-term and employee parking lots that would be built near the new terminal and accessed via extensions to the existing terminal loop roadway, would not significantly change vehicular fuel consumption Northside Alternative (Sponsor s Proposed Action) The Northside Alternative would temporarily increase the use of consumable materials with the redevelopment of the terminal, and improvements to terminal access roads, parking facilities, apron space, and ancillary facilities on the Airport. Like the other alternatives discussed above, the Northside Alternative would include sustainable design elements to reduce its energy consumption and possible greenhouse gas emissions. Such elements may include but are not limited to preconditioned air, solar power supply systems, and energy efficient lighting and equipment. Current and future consumable materials and energy supplies are available to build this Alternative. If demolition of the existing terminal occurs, it is possible some of the debris would be used as fill or other purposes for the Northside Alternative. Recycling of concrete, pavement, or steel due to modifying portions of the airfield s taxiway and apron system and improving Loyola Drive, Aberdeen Street, and Bainbridge Street would likely occur. This would reduce the demands on consumable products used to build the Northside Alternative s modified airfield and roadway configurations. Existing and future resource and energy supplies would meet the temporary increase in consumable materials that would occur during the construction period. Therefore, construction activities would not cause a significant impact on energy supplies or natural resources. Sustainable design and more efficient climate-control terminal operating systems would reduce the operational and maintenance demands on future energy and natural resources associated with the Northside Alternative. In terms of aircraft operations, the Northside Alternative would trigger some changes to aircraft movement due to longer taxi times from Runway to the north side terminal. Thus, there would be minor increases in aircraft fuel consumption compared to the existing configuration. A portion of the Airport s vehicular traffic (i.e., passenger cars, trucks providing supplies, etc.) would shift from the south side to north side of the Airport due to redevelopment of the terminal and its associated north side, parking garage. However, this shift would not significantly change vehicular fuel consumption when compared to the existing Airport layout. This is because a terminal on the north side of the Airport would be closer to major roadways such as Interstate 10 and Veterans Memorial Boulevard and because the Northside Alternative would not increase the Airport s passenger demand (i.e., demand would be the same with or without the project). 5-78

156 Mitigation and Best Management Practices Each of the reasonable alternatives could incorporate a variety of sustainable design elements to reduce energy consumption and possible greenhouse gas emissions. Such elements may include but are not limited to preconditioned air, solar power supply systems, and energy efficient lighting and equipment. 5-79

157 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 5-80

158 5.12 NOISE This section describes the existing noise conditions in the Airport Study Area and the laws and regulations addressing airport noise. It also discusses the effects the No Action, Proposed Action, and reasonable alternatives would have on existing noise levels in the Airport Study Area, as well as measures to mitigate the potential adverse effects associated with implementation of any of these alternatives Background The potential for environmental noise impacts due to the proposed terminal project was considered for both aircraft operations and roadway traffic. Because the reasonable alternatives would not induce additional aircraft operations, affect the aircraft fleet mix, operational time-ofday at the airport, or change the location of the existing runways, the only change in aircraftrelated noise exposure would be solely due to taxiing operations. Because the change in taxiing operations is not likely to result in significant impacts to noise exposure (i.e., an increase of 1.5 decibels (db) at or above a day-night level (DNL) of 65 db), significant aircraft noise impacts are not anticipated as a result of this project and aircraft noise was not included in the assessment. When analyzing project-related noise effects, FAA has found noise effects are often the most highly controversial effects associated with airport development. This is because noise affects resources on and off the airport. For example noise modeling data are used to determine: noise effects on noise sensitive land uses to determine which uses are or are not compatible with project-related airport operations; noise effects on parkland use, recreational area use, or settings of historic properties; and which of the above land uses will receive noise mitigation and which will not. The U.S. Congress has determined that aviation noise effects fall under FAA s purview. Three of the most important Federal laws addressing these effects are: The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA); 52 The Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979 (ASNA); 53 The Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (AAIA); 54 NEPA: NEPA requires the analysis of project-related effects on man s environment. In meeting this requirement, FAA examines project-related noise effects resulting from proposed aviation projects and actions. ASNA: This law requires the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) to issue regulations establishing a system to measure and assess airport-related noise effects. The law also required the Secretary to identify land uses that are normally compatible with airport operations and the noise levels those operations cause. FAA, as the U.S. Department of Transportation agency responsible for maintaining safe and efficient air traffic in the United States, met these U.S.C. Sections U.S.C. Sections U.S.C. Section

159 requirements on the Secretary s behalf. Regulations at 14 CFR Part 150 address the ASNA requirements (see Section ). AAIA: Even though airports and airport improvements are needed to maintain the nation s aviation system, reducing noise from those improvements on land uses near airports is also critical. This law required the Secretary to set a national policy to reduce current and projected airport-related noise effects on communities Regulatory Context The analysis of aviation noise impacts falls under the responsibility of the FAA. The FAA s basis for compliance with NEPA is FAA Order E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures. A list of Federal statutes, and FAA regulations related to the consideration of noise impacts are as follows: The Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979; 55 The Federal Aviation Act of 1958; 56 The Control and Abatement of Aircraft Noise and Sonic Boom Act of 1968; 57 and The Airport Noise and Capacity Act of The analysis of highway traffic noise impacts is governed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) under 23 CFR 772, Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise. 59 Highway traffic noise policies are promulgated independently by each state. The State of Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD) provides specific noise analysis and abatement policies and procedures for compliance with 23 CFR 772 through the agency s Highway Traffic Noise Policy Methodology Potential noise effects would result from both construction (i.e., implementation of the reasonable alternative) and airport-related activity with the reasonable alternative. Constructionrelated noise impacts would be temporary. As stated above, the potential for environmental noise impacts due to the proposed terminal project was considered for both aircraft operations and roadway traffic. Aircraft noise impacts are deemed significant only if noise-sensitive areas experience an increase of 1.5 db or more at or above a DNL of 65 db. This level of impact may be generated by airport operational changes such as: number of operations, fleet mix, operational time-of-day, runway layout, runway utilization, flight tracks and altitude profiles. None of the alternatives would induce additional aircraft operations, nor will any of the alternatives affect the aircraft fleet mix or operational time-of-day at the airport. Additionally, the existing primary runways, 1/19 and 10/28, will remain in the same layout, and runway utilization is not projected to change. Accordingly, flight tracks and altitude profiles would also not change. Although the Northside Alternative would include new taxiways and gate locations on the north side of the Airport and the Westside Alternative would include new gate locations west of the existing terminal building, the noise levels associated with taxiing aircraft are generally lower than noise levels of those arriving and departing. Any changes in noise exposure due solely to U.S. Code The Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act of 1979, 49 USC Subsection U.S. Code The Federal Aviation Act of 1958, 49 USC Subsection U.S. Code The Control and Abatement Noise and Sonic Boom Act of 1968, 49 USC Subsection U.S. Code The Airport Noise and Capacity Act, 49 USC Subsection Federal Highway Administration, Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise and Construction Noise, 23 CFR Part 772, October 16, State of Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, Highway Traffic Noise Policy, July

160 taxiing operations would be unlikely to result in significant impacts to noise exposure (i.e., an increase of 1.5 db at or above DNL 65 db). For the Northside Alternative, the location of the new taxiways would be on the south side of the new terminal building. Thus, any noise associated with taxiing aircraft would be shielded from the residential neighborhood north of the Airport by the new terminal building and the parking garage. For the Westside Alternative, the location of the gates associated with the terminal building would be west of the existing terminal building and would be farther from any residential land uses than the No Action Alternative. Therefore, given the locations of the new taxiways and gates for the Northside and Westside Alternatives and the distance from residential land uses and the development of structures between the new taxiways and the residential land uses, neither the Northside Alternative nor the Westside Alternative would result in an increase in aircraft taxiing noise compared to the No Action Alternative. Therefore, significant aircraft noise impacts are not anticipated as a result of this project and aircraft noise was not included in the assessment. The Northside Alternative would however result in changes to the terminal and other facility locations which would result in changes to roadway traffic patterns and the need for roadway expansion. Thus, roadway noise levels were assessed to determine whether motor vehicle traffic-related noise impacts would result from the project. The sections below detail the computer model, local roadway layout, noise-sensitive receptors, and traffic data used to assess roadway noise. Noise Model The prediction of existing and future traffic noise levels was performed using the FHWA s computer model for highway traffic noise prediction and analysis, the Traffic Noise Model (TNM) version 2.5. The TNM models the propagation of sound energy between highways and modeled receptors taking the intervening ground s topography, acoustical characteristics, and rows of buildings into account. Roadways Figure 5-9 illustrates the local roadways that carry traffic to and from the airport. Of particular interest are the roadway segments relevant to the Proposed Action (i.e., roadways which may experience an increase or decrease in traffic levels due to the proposed development). The volume of traffic used in vehicle noise assessments is of particular importance because resultant noise levels are low when traffic volumes are low (i.e., a roadway is operating at levelof-service ((LOS) A or B) and when traffic is so congested that movement is slow (LOS D, E, or F). Generally, the maximum hourly noise level occurs between these two conditions. Therefore, the traffic volumes used in the analysis of motor vehicle noise reflected either a roadway segment design LOS C volume or the demand volume, whichever was forecast to be less. A review of the forecast traffic volumes, proposed roadway improvements, and the location of noise sensitive land uses (receptors) indicated that only two of the roadway segment highlighted on Figure 5-9, Segment C (Veterans Memorial Boulevard) and Segment F (Aberdeen Street), needed to be included in the noise analysis. For the evaluation of the Northside Alternative, a proposed (i.e., new) airport entrance road was also included in the analysis. This entrance road would be constructed as an at-grade four-lane divided roadway with 12-foot travel lanes. As shown in Figure 5-10, the entrance road would be aligned east of, and parallel to, Aberdeen Street. As shown in the inset on Figure 3-4, Aberdeen Street would be converted to a cul-desac north of 27th Street (i.e., there would be no direct access to Veterans Memorial Boulevard 5-83

161 Figure 5-9 ROADWAY SEGMENTS RELATED TO PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES SOURCE: KB Environmental Sciences, Inc

162 Figure 5-10 PROPOSED ENTRANCE ROAD 5-85

163 from Aberdeen Street). For the Refurbishment, Southside, and Westside Alternatives, airportrelated traffic would use Aberdeen Street as it currently exists to access the proposed long-term parking lot on the north side of the Airport Thresholds of Significance For highway noise, the Louisiana Department of Transportation (DOTD) defines thresholds of significance based on the land-use Activity Category of a property (e.g., a residential land use). These thresholds are expressed in db on the A-weighted scale (db(a)), the scale that most closely approximates the response characteristics of the human ear to traffic noise. Traffic sounds are also reported as one-hour equivalent sound levels (Leq(h)). Leq(h) values are steady-state sound levels that contain the same acoustic energy as time-varying sound levels over a period of one hour. Table 5-15 presents the Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) defined in terms of Leq(h) for various types of land-use Activity Categories. When predicted traffic noise levels approach or exceed the Federal Highway Administration s (FHWA s) NAC, or when predicted future noise levels increase substantially from existing levels, the FHWA requires that noise abatement measures be considered. DOTD defines the word approach to mean within one db(a) of the FHWA NAC, thus the DOTD NAC are 1 db(a) lower, as shown in Table If the NAC is exceeded, DOTD policy states that noise abatement would need to be considered if any future noise level exceeds an existing noise level by 10 db(a) or more Noise Sensitive Properties As discussed in the previous section, roadway Segments C and F were evaluated for the potential to cause/create adverse levels of noise. For the purpose of identifying areas of adverse effects, receptors were defined in TNM to represent the noise-sensitive land uses adjacent to these roadway segments. A receptor is defined as a single facility, location, or dwelling unit. In the case of some multifamily buildings, each unit within the complex was considered as one receptor. The noise sensitive land uses were categorized using the Activity Categories defined in Table A total of 153 Category B land uses (i.e., residences) were identified/evaluated, two Category D land uses (one medical facility and one place of worship) and one Category E land use (a hotel) were evaluated. The locations of these properties and the evaluated receptors are shown on Figures 5-11, 5-12, and

164 Table 5-15 NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA Activity Leq(h) 1 expressed in db(a) Activity Category Description of Activity Category FHWA NAC DOTD NAC A Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose. 57 (Exterior) 56 (Exterior) B 2 C 2 D E 2 F Residential Active sports areas, amphitheaters, auditoriums, campgrounds, cemeteries, day care centers, hospitals, libraries, medical facilities, parks, picnic areas, places of worship, playgrounds, public meeting rooms, public or nonprofit institutional structures, radio studios, recording studios, recreational areas, Section 4(f) sites, schools, television studios, trails, and trail crossings. Auditoriums, day care centers, hospitals, libraries, medical facilities, places of worship, public meeting rooms, public or nonprofit institutional structures, radio studios, recording studios, schools, and television studios. Hotels, motels, offices, restaurants/bars, and other developed lands, properties or activities not included in A-D or F. Agriculture, airports, bus yards, emergency services, industrial, logging, maintenance facilities, manufacturing, mining, rail yards, retail facilities, shipyards, utilities (water resources, water treatment, electrical), and warehousing. 67 (Exterior) 67 (Exterior) 52 (Interior) 72 (Exterior) 66 (Exterior) 66 (Exterior) 51 (Interior) 71 (Exterior) G Undeveloped lands that are not permitted Traffic Data Traffic data were used to define the volume of traffic per vehicle type and the prevailing speed of vehicles. Existing traffic data for roadway Segment F (Aberdeen Street) represented year 2012 conditions. No Build and Build 2018 traffic counts were based on projected demand without and with the proposed terminal development. Table 5-16 presents the traffic volumes used in the analysis, including the Average Daily Traffic (ADT), peak hourly traffic, off-peak hourly traffic, and speed data for the existing, No build and Northside Alternative scenarios. The posted speed limits for each evaluated roadway were assumed in TNM for all vehicles. 5-87

165 Table 5-16 TRAFFIC VOLUME AND SPEED DATA Scenario LOS C ADT Demand ADT Vehicle Type Peak Hourly Off-Peak Hourly Posted Speed (mph) Existing 14,500 1,580 No-Build 14,500 1,801 Northside Alternative 14,500 21,450 Refurbishment, Southside, and Westside Alternatives 14,500 21,450 Autos Medium Trucks 5 4 Heavy Trucks 0 0 Buses 1 1 Motorcycles 0 0 Autos Medium Trucks 6 5 Heavy Trucks 1 1 Buses 1 1 Motorcycles 0 0 Autos Medium Trucks Heavy Trucks 9 7 Buses 7 6 Motorcycles 1 1 Autos Medium Trucks 6 5 Heavy Trucks 1 1 Buses 1 1 Motorcycles SOURCE: RS&H Existing Conditions The predicted existing traffic noise levels are presented in Table As shown, the levels range from 44 to 60 db on the A-weighted scale (db(a)). Notably, some of the TNM predicted traffic noise levels were lower than 44 db(a). Because the TNM does not account for other sources of sound and/or noise within an area (e.g., birds, lawnmowers), it was determined that ambient (i.e., outdoor) noise level in the evaluated community is not likely to be less than the levels that are typical in a quiet suburban area (i.e., 44 db(a). Therefore, the predicted noise levels less than 44 db(a) were assumed to be 44 db(a). 5-88

166 Figure 5-11 NOISE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS (ALONG ABERDEEN STREET AND VETERANS MEMORIAL BOULEVARD BETWEEN ABERDEEN STREET AND TUPELO STREET) Chapter 5: Environmental Consequences 5-89 December 2013

167 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Chapter 5: Environmental Consequences 5-90 December 2013

168 Figure 5-12 NOISE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS (ALONG VETERANS MEMORIAL BOULEVARD BETWEEN ACRON STREET AND LEXINGTON STREET Chapter 5: Environmental Consequences 5-91 December 2013

169 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Chapter 5: Environmental Consequences 5-92 December 2013

170 Figure 5-13 NOISE SENSITIVE RECEPTORS (ALONG VETERANS MEMORIAL BOULEVARD BETWEEN BAINBRIDGE STREET AND WILLIAMS BOULEVARD) Chapter 5: Environmental Consequences 5-93 December 2013

171 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Chapter 5: Environmental Consequences 5-94 December 2013

172 Table 5-17 NOISE MODELING ANALYSIS RESULTS Existing No Action Alternative Northside Alternative Refurbishment, Southside, and Westside Alternatives Rec ID Land Use Activity Category Exterior or Interior No. of Dwelling Units Leq(h) in db(a) Leq(h) in db(a) Leq(h) in db(a) Increase from Existing Approaches, Meets, or Exceeds NAC or Substantial Increase? Leq(h) in db(a) Increase from Existing Approaches, Meets, or Exceeds NAC or Substantial Increase? 1 Residential B Exterior No 57 3 No 2 Residential B Exterior No 60 3 No 3 Residential B Exterior No 59 3 No 4 Residential B Exterior No 48 3 No 5 Residential B Exterior No 44 0 No 6 Residential B Exterior No 47 3 No 7 Residential B Exterior No 46 2 No 8 Residential B Exterior No 46 2 No 9 Residential B Exterior No 48 2 No 9b Residential B Exterior No 48 2 No 10 Residential B Exterior No 48 2 No 10b Residential B Exterior No 48 2 No 11 Residential B Exterior No 48 2 No 11b Residential B Exterior No 48 2 No 12 Residential B Exterior No 48 2 No 12b Residential B Exterior No 48 2 No 13 Residential B Exterior No 52 3 No 13b Residential B Exterior No 51 3 No 14 Residential B Exterior No 48 3 No 14b Residential B Exterior No 46 2 No 15 Residential B Exterior No 44 0 No 15b Residential B Exterior No 44 0 No 16 Residential B Exterior No 49 3 No 17 Residential B Exterior No 46 2 No 5-95

173 Existing No Action Alternative Northside Alternative Refurbishment, Southside, and Westside Alternatives Rec ID Land Use Activity Category Exterior or Interior No. of Dwelling Units Leq(h) in db(a) Leq(h) in db(a) Leq(h) in db(a) Increase from Existing Approaches, Meets, or Exceeds NAC or Substantial Increase? Leq(h) in db(a) Increase from Existing Approaches, Meets, or Exceeds NAC or Substantial Increase? 18 Residential B Exterior No 44 0 No 19 Residential B Exterior No 57 3 No 20 Residential B Exterior No 55 3 No 21 Residential B Exterior No 52 3 No 22 Residential B Exterior No 51 3 No 23 Residential B Exterior No 49 3 No 24 Residential B Exterior No 48 3 No 25 Residential B Exterior No 47 3 No 26 Residential B Exterior No 45 1 No 27 Residential B Exterior No 44 0 No 28 Residential B Exterior No 46 2 No 29 Residential B Exterior No 46 2 No 30 Residential B Exterior No 46 2 No 31 Residential B Exterior No 46 2 No 32 Residential B Exterior No 46 2 No 33 Residential B Exterior No 46 2 No 34 Residential B Exterior No 46 2 No 35 Residential B Exterior No 46 2 No 36 Residential B Exterior No 46 2 No 37 Residential B Exterior No 46 2 No 38 Residential B Exterior No 46 2 No 39 Residential B Exterior No 45 1 No 40 Residential B Exterior No 60 3 No 41 Residential B Exterior No 60 3 No 42 Church D Interior No 48 4 No 43 Medical Facility D Interior No 44 0 No 45 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 59 0 No 5-96

174 Existing No Action Alternative Northside Alternative Refurbishment, Southside, and Westside Alternatives Rec ID Land Use Activity Category Exterior or Interior No. of Dwelling Units Leq(h) in db(a) Leq(h) in db(a) Leq(h) in db(a) Increase from Existing Approaches, Meets, or Exceeds NAC or Substantial Increase? Leq(h) in db(a) Increase from Existing Approaches, Meets, or Exceeds NAC or Substantial Increase? 47 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 59 0 No 48 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 59 0 No 49 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 59 0 No 50 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 59 0 No 51 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 59 0 No 52 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 59 0 No 53 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 59 0 No 54 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 59 0 No 55 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 59 0 No 56 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 60 0 No 57 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 60 0 No 58 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 60 0 No 59 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 59 0 No 60 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 59 0 No 61 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 60 0 No 62 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 60 0 No 63 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 59 0 No 64 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 59 0 No 65 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 60 0 No 66 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 59 0 No 67 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 59 0 No 68 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 60 0 No 69 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 60 0 No 70 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 60 0 No 71 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 60 0 No 73 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 59 0 No 74 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 60 0 No 5-97

175 Existing No Action Alternative Northside Alternative Refurbishment, Southside, and Westside Alternatives Rec ID Land Use Activity Category Exterior or Interior No. of Dwelling Units Leq(h) in db(a) Leq(h) in db(a) Leq(h) in db(a) Increase from Existing Approaches, Meets, or Exceeds NAC or Substantial Increase? Leq(h) in db(a) Increase from Existing Approaches, Meets, or Exceeds NAC or Substantial Increase? 76 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 60 0 No 77 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 60 0 No 78 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 60 0 No 79 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 60 0 No 80 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 60 0 No 81 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 61 0 No 82 Hotel E Exterior N/A 0 No 54 0 No 83 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 60 0 No 84 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 60 0 No 85 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 60 0 No 86 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 60 0 No 87 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 60 0 No 88 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 60 0 No 89 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 60 0 No 90 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 60 0 No 91 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 60 0 No 92 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 60 0 No 93 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 60 0 No 94 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 59 0 No 95 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 59 0 No 96 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 59 0 No 97 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 59 0 No 98 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 60 0 No 99 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 60 0 No 100 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 60 0 No 101 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 60 0 No 102 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 60 0 No 5-98

176 Existing No Action Alternative Northside Alternative Refurbishment, Southside, and Westside Alternatives Rec ID Land Use Activity Category Exterior or Interior No. of Dwelling Units Leq(h) in db(a) Leq(h) in db(a) Leq(h) in db(a) Increase from Existing Approaches, Meets, or Exceeds NAC or Substantial Increase? Leq(h) in db(a) Increase from Existing Approaches, Meets, or Exceeds NAC or Substantial Increase? 104 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 60 0 No 105 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 60 0 No 106 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 56 0 No 107 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 56 0 No 108 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 56 0 No 109 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 56 0 No 110 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 60 0 No 111 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 60 0 No 112 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 60 0 No 113 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 60 0 No 114 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 60 0 No 115 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 60 0 No 116 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 57 0 No 117 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 57 0 No 118 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 56 0 No 119 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 56 0 No 120 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 59 0 No 121 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 58 0 No 122 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 57 0 No 123 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 56 0 No 124 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 59 0 No 125 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 58 0 No 126 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 57 0 No 127 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 57 0 No 128 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 59 0 No 129 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 58 0 No 130 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 57 0 No 5-99

177 Existing No Action Alternative Northside Alternative Refurbishment, Southside, and Westside Alternatives Rec ID Land Use Activity Category Exterior or Interior No. of Dwelling Units Leq(h) in db(a) Leq(h) in db(a) Leq(h) in db(a) Increase from Existing Approaches, Meets, or Exceeds NAC or Substantial Increase? Leq(h) in db(a) Increase from Existing Approaches, Meets, or Exceeds NAC or Substantial Increase? 132 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 53 0 No 133 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 53 0 No 134 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 53 0 No 135 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 53 0 No 136 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 53 0 No 137 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 52 0 No 138 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 51 0 No 139 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 44 0 No 140 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 44 0 No 141 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 44 0 No 142 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 44 0 No 143 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 44 0 No 144 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 44 0 No 145 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 44 0 No 146 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 44 0 No 147 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 44 0 No 148 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 44 0 No 149 Residential B Exterior N/A 0 No 44 0 No NOTES:44.0 Denotes levels which were adjusted to reflect the exterior ambient sound levels for a quiet suburban location N/A = The noise barriers would not reduce predicted traffic noise at this location. SOURCE: KB Environmental Sciences, Inc

178 Environmental Consequences No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative represents the traffic noise levels from projected changes to traffic volumes in the absence of the implementation of any of the alternatives associated with the Long-Term Development Program. The No Action Alternative scenario in TNM included an increase in demand ADT of 221 vehicles but no change to traffic speed. The resulting predicted traffic noise levels are provided in Table Refurbishment Alternative Construction of the Refurbishment Alternative would occur in an airport environment that operates 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The environment surrounding the Airport is urbanized and subjected to aircraft noise generated by operation of the Airport and highway noise generated by adjacent public roadways (i.e., Airline Drive, Airport Access Road, Veterans Memorial Boulevard, and Interstate 10). Construction would result in temporary increases in noise generation in the immediate vicinity of the area where the Refurbishment Alternative would be constructed. Based on the distance of the nearest residential land use from this area, which are separated from the area by roadways and other urbanized land uses, it is not anticipated that daytime construction would result in noise generation that would exceed any noise ordinance, expose individuals to excessive groundborne vibrations, or result in unacceptable ambient noise levels. The implementation of Best Management Practices would further reduce any construction-related noise effects of the Refurbishment Alternative. As shown in Table 5-17, the Refurbishment Alternative would not result in appreciable changes, and in some locations, no change, to the noise environment from those that are predicted for the No Action Alternative. When compared to existing conditions, predicted surface traffic noise levels along Aberdeen Street and Veterans Memorial Boulevard would remain the same or increase by 1 to 4 db(a) depending on the location. This is not considered to be a significant impact Southside Alternative Construction of the Southside Alternative would occur in an airport environment that operates 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The environment surrounding the Airport is urbanized and subjected to aircraft noise generated by operation of the Airport and highway noise generated by adjacent public roadways (i.e., Airline Drive, Airport Access Road, Veterans Memorial Boulevard, and Interstate 10). Construction would result in temporary increases in noise generation in the immediate vicinity of the area where the Southside Alternative would be constructed. Based on the distance of the nearest residential land use from this area, which are separated from the area by roadways and other urbanized land uses, it is not anticipated that daytime construction would result in noise generation that would exceed any noise ordinance, expose individuals to excessive groundborne vibrations, or result in unacceptable ambient noise levels. The implementation of Best Management Practices would further reduce any construction-related noise effects of the Southside Alternative. As shown in Table 5-17, the Southside Alternative would not result in appreciable changes, and in some locations, no change, to the noise environment from those that are predicted for the No Action Alternative. When compared to existing conditions, predicted surface traffic noise levels along Aberdeen Street and Veterans Memorial Boulevard would remain the same or increase by 1 to 4 db(a) depending on the location. This is not considered to be a significant impact

179 Westside Alternative Construction of the Westside Alternative would occur in an airport environment that operates 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The environment surrounding the Airport is urbanized and subjected to aircraft noise generated by operation of the Airport and highway noise generated by adjacent public roadways (i.e., Airline Drive, Airport Access Road, Veterans Memorial Boulevard, and Interstate 10). Construction would result in temporary increases in noise generation in the immediate vicinity of the area where the Westside Alternative would be constructed. Based on the distance of the nearest residential land use from this area, which are separated from the area by roadways and other urbanized land uses, it is not anticipated that daytime construction would result in noise generation that would exceed any noise ordinance, expose individuals to excessive groundborne vibrations, or result in unacceptable ambient noise levels. The implementation of Best Management Practices would further reduce any construction-related noise effects of the Westside Alternative. As shown in Table 5-17, the Westside Alternative would not result in appreciable changes, and in some locations, no change, to the noise environment from those that are predicted for the No Action Alternative. When compared to existing conditions, predicted surface traffic noise levels along Aberdeen Street and Veterans Memorial Boulevard would remain the same or increase by 1 to 4 db(a) depending on the location. This is not considered to be a significant impact Northside Alternative Construction of the Northside Alternative would occur in an airport environment that operates 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The environment surrounding the Airport is urbanized and subjected to aircraft noise generated by operation of the Airport and highway noise generated by adjacent public roadways (i.e., Airline Drive, Airport Access Road, Veterans Memorial Boulevard, and Interstate 10). Construction would result in temporary increases in noise generation in the immediate vicinity of the area where the Northside Alternative would be constructed. Based on the distance of the nearest residential land use from this area, which are separated from the area by light industrial land uses, it is not anticipated that daytime construction would result in noise generation that would exceed any noise ordinance, expose individuals to excessive groundborne vibrations, or result in unacceptable ambient noise levels. The implementation of Best Management Practices would further reduce any constructionrelated noise effects of the Northside Alternative. The Northside Alternative includes the construction of noise barriers along the proposed fourlane entrance road adjacent to the Aberdeen Street right-of-way. Appendix G presents the results of the analysis that determined that noise barriers would be needed as part of the Northside Alternative. The resulting noise levels for the Northside Alternative and the difference in predicted traffic noise levels from the existing condition are shown in Table With the implementation of the noise barriers, none of the locations would approach, meet, or exceed the NAC. Thus, no significant traffic noise impacts would occur as a result of the Northside Alternative Mitigation and Best Management Practices To reduce construction-related noise, NOAB would consider implementation of Best Management Practices

180 Figure 5-14 NOISE BARRIER DESIGN 5-103

181 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 5-104

182 5.13 SECONDARY (INDUCED) IMPACTS This section addresses the secondary or induced effects of the No Action Alternatives and the reasonable alternatives. Those effects typically include shifts in patterns of population movement and growth, changes in the demand for public services, and changes in business and economic activity Background Most airport development projects cause some level of secondary effects. Those effects may be may be beneficial or adverse. Examples of beneficial effects include: buying construction and operating supplies from local vendors; providing local artists on-airport areas to display their works; improvements in mass transit opportunities to and from the airport; or offering permanent and part-time jobs to local citizens. Examples of adverse effects include: placing demands on local emergency, school, or police services due to sudden influxes of transient workers; or causing changes in population patterns that reduce local taxes. In most cases, secondary effects are linked to other environmental resource categories. An example of such a cause-and-effect pattern would be significant noise effects on a residential area. To properly mitigate the effect, the purchase of homes and relocating their residents would alter local taxes, lead to abandoned areas that may cause economic effects on local businesses, and create new demands for goods and services in areas where displaced residents relocate Regulatory Context The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires a Federal agency like the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to conduct interdisciplinary, comprehensive evaluations of a project s effects on the human environment (natural, cultural, social). As a result, 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) , the Council on Environmental Quality s NEPA implementing regulations (40 CFR 1500 et. seq.) requires FAA to consider project-induced indirect effects in its NEPA evaluations. Indirect effects occur at a later time than a project s direct effects, or the effects may occur at a distance from the project s direct, physical impacts. For example, FAA must examine projected increases in population density that a project could cause when new businesses and their corresponding employment opportunities (e.g., service employees for hotels or restaurants, etc.) arise to serve the needs of people using an airport Methodology Timely coordination with local or regional officials is critical to properly analyzing this impact category. Planning authorities, housing commissions, chambers of commerce, public utilities, emergency and police services, transportation departments, and metropolitan planning organizations provide valuable insight and data on goods, services, roadway capacities, and gas, water, and electrical supplies. Knowing that information is critical to evaluating how a proposed action would affect community-based issues (e.g., demographics, zoning changes, job opportunities, real estate availability, police/fire protection, school enrollments, taxes, etc.)

183 Analysts pay particular attention to project-related noise, land use, and social impacts as they prepare this section of a NEPA document because those environmental categories provide valuable information on determining how a project would affect critical, community-based issues. The NOAB has conducted numerous meetings to discuss issues with local and regional officials (see Appendix B-1 and Appendix B-6). Coordination meetings have been on-going since 2012 with regular progress meetings on the status of the Airport project. Specific details around the alternatives and input from the stakeholders were sought before the Mayor of New Orleans announcement in March 2013 regarding the Sponsor s Proposed Action. The City of Kenner and Jefferson Parish officials were present at the press conference and expressed their support for the project. The City of Kenner s Mayor and their Chief Administrative Officer paid a visit to the FAA officials and expressed their strong support for the Northside Alternative Thresholds of Significance FAA Order E, Change 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, does not provide a significance threshold for secondary effects. Instead, Appendix A, Section 15 states: Induced impacts will normally not be significant except where there are also significant impacts in other categories, especially noise, land use or direct social impacts Environmental Consequences No Action Alternative No changes would occur at the Airport under the No Action Alternative. Thus, no there would be no secondary (induced) impacts under the No Action Alternative Refurbishment Alternative The Refurbishment Alternative would retain aircraft operations and most of the passengerrelated activity on the south side of the Airport. Building and operating a long-term surface parking lot on the north side of the Airport may enhance some business or economic activity in sections of Kenner in the vicinity of the long-term surface parking lot. The Refurbishment Alternative would accommodate the same level of passenger, aircraft, and vehicular traffic as the No Action Alternative since the Refurbishment Alternative would not enhance Airport capacity (see Chapter 2, Purpose and Need). However, those activities would not cause significant noise, land use compatibility, or socioeconomic impacts to the Regional Study Area. In addition, the Refurbishment Alternative would not cause the City of Kenner to experience shifts or growth in population or increased demands on its public services Southside Alternative The Southside Alternative would retain aircraft operations and most passenger-related activity on the south side of the Airport. The Southside Alternative would accommodate the same level of passenger, aircraft, and vehicular traffic as the No Action Alternative since the Southside Alternative would not enhance Airport capacity (see Chapter 2, Purpose and Need). Since the Southside Alternative includes a long-term surface parking lot on the north side of the Airport, it would have the same effects on the City of Kenner as discussed in the Refurbishment Alternative Westside Alternative The Westside Alternative would retain aircraft operations and most passenger-related activity on the south side of the Airport. The Westside Alternative would accommodate the same level of 5-106

184 passenger, aircraft, and vehicular traffic as the No Action Alternative since the Westside Alternative would not enhance Airport capacity (see Chapter 2, Purpose and Need). The Westside Alternative also includes a long-term surface parking lot on the north side of the Airport. The Westside Alternative would have impacts similar to those discussed for the Refurbishment Alternative and the Southside Alternative Northside Alternative The Northside Alternative would include the development of a new terminal and ancillary facilities. Building and operating the new terminal and the ancillary facilities may enhance some business or economic activity in sections of Kenner north of the Airport, especially areas along Veterans Memorial Boulevard. However, those activities would not cause significant noise, land use compatibility, or socioeconomic impacts to the Regional Study Area. Similar to the Refurbishment Alternative, the Northside Alternative would accommodate the same level of passenger, aircraft, and vehicular traffic as the No Action Alternative since the Northside Alternative would not enhance Airport capacity (see Chapter 2, Purpose and Need). In addition, the Northside Alternative would not cause the City of Kenner to experience shifts or growth in population or increased demands on its public services Mitigation and Best Management Practices No significant secondary impacts would occur with any of the reasonable alternatives. Therefore, no mitigation is warranted

185 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 5-108

186 5.14 SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, AND CHILDREN S HEALTH AND SAFETY RISKS This section describes the environmental consequences associated with socioeconomic impacts, environmental justice and children s health and safety risks resulting from the No Action Alternative and the reasonable alternatives Background Section 101(a) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) notes it is the policy of the Federal government to create and maintain conditions that fulfill the social needs of present and future American generations. Socioeconomic Socioeconomic effects could involve relocating people from their homes, moving businesses, or causing substantial changes in local traffic patterns. They also involve dividing or disrupting established communities or planned development, and creating notable changes in employment. Environmental Justice Executive Order requires Federal agencies to analyze project effects relative to lowincome and minority populations. Environmental justice analysis considers the potential of the proposed action s alternatives to cause disproportionate and adverse effects on low-income or minority populations. The analysis of environmental justice impacts and associated mitigation ensures that no low-income or minority population bears a disproportionately high and adverse effects resulting from the implementation of the proposed action. To help describe environmental justice, this EA relies on the guidance in FAA Order E, Change 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, Appendix A, Section 16, which is consistent with U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Order (a), Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations. Children s Health and Safety Risks Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks requires Federal agencies to make child protection a high priority because children may be more susceptible to environmental effects than adults. This EA considers the potential of the proposed action and reasonable alternatives to cause disproportionately high and adverse effects on the environmental health and safety of children within Airport Study Area and Regional Study Area Regulatory Context A list of Federal statutes, regulations, executive orders, and administrative guidance related to the consideration of socioeconomic, environmental justice, and children s health and safety risk impacts are as follows: 5-109

187 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), , Protection of Environment; Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 11, 1994); U.S. DOT Order (a), Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations, April 15, 1997; Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act, December 10, 1997; and Final Guidance for Consideration of Environmental Justice in Clean Air Act 309 Reviews, July Methodology FAA Order E, Change 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, Appendix A, Section 16 requires FAA to consider project-related effects such as: moving people from their homes; moving businesses; dividing or disrupting established communities; changing surface transportation patterns or traffic levels; disrupting orderly, planned development; or creating a notable change in employment. Socioeconomic Impacts Due to concerns received during the preliminary scoping and scoping meetings conducted for this Project, this EA presents the results of a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) detailing weekday morning (AM) and late afternoon (PM) peak hour traffic impacts at intersections that the No Action Alternative and reasonable alternatives have the potential to affect. The assessed intersections and roadway segments were based on the preliminary design of the access to the locations of the various terminal improvements. The surface traffic analysis described within this section for the future study years (2018 and 2023) calculated the numbers of trips generated by the Airport. The analysis distributed those trips to roadways in the Airport Study Area and Regional Study Area of the North Alternative based on design and scoping issues for this Project. In addition, the operating conditions at applicable intersections and roadway segments for the AM and PM peak hour conditions were studied for the following: Existing Condition (see Section 4.13 of this EA) Future Year No Action Alternative Future Year with Refurbishment, Southside, or Westside Alternative Future Year With Northside Alternative The future year evaluation of the proposed improvements to roadways, intersections, or interchanges in the Airport Study Area and Regional Study Area of the North Alternative utilized procedures contained in the year 2000 update of the Highway Capacity Manual. 61 The Highway Capacity Manual contains concepts, guidelines, and computational procedures for computing the capacity and quality of service of various highway facilities, including freeways, highways, 61 Available on the TRB website at:

188 arterial roads, roundabouts, signalized and un-signalized intersections, rural highways, and the effects of mass transit, pedestrians, and bicycles on the performance of these systems. Future year traffic conditions needed to conduct the evaluation were obtained by projecting straight line traffic growth between existing condition and future year modeling results. This section also identifies the levels and duration of project construction traffic and the probability of any construction traffic using roadways and intersections in the Airport Study Area and Regional Study Area. Environmental Justice Data from the 2010 U.S. Census were analyzed to determine the number of minority and lowincome populations within the Airport Study Area and Regional Study Area. Data were compiled from Census Tracts 206, 210, 211, 212, and 9800, which encompass the Airport Study Area and Regional Study Area. In addition, demographic data associated with other geographic areas were reviewed. U.S. Census data provided a comparison of the study area demographics to other areas of the City of Kenner, Jefferson and Saint Charles Parishes, and the City of New Orleans. The information was used to determine if the reasonable alternatives would cause disproportionate effects on low-income and minority populations when compared to the No Action Alternative Thresholds of Significance The thresholds of significance, contained in FAA Order E, Change 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, Appendix A, Section 16, address socioeconomic, environmental justice and children s health and risk effects as noted below: Socioeconomic The following issues are considered to determine the intensity and context of project-related effects. disruption of local traffic patterns would substantially reduce the Levels of Service (LOS) on roads serving Regional Study Area; or a substantial loss in community tax base would occur. The traffic analysis was prepared in accordance with Title 23 USC Section 106 and the Stewardship Agreement between the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LaDOTD). The Stewardship Agreement clarifies the roles and responsibilities of both the FHWA and LaDOTD in implementing the Federal aid highway program. As noted earlier, evaluation procedures followed the 2000 update of the Highway Capacity Manual. Environmental Justice For the purposes of establishing a threshold for analysis and to establish the context of terminology used in this section, it is important to define the terms, significant impact, low- Income population, and minority population. The following paragraphs address each of those terms in the context of the regulatory methodologies used in this analysis

189 FAA Order E, Change 1, Appendix A, Section defines a significant impact as one that may occur when an action would cause disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on low-income or minority populations. According to DOT Order (a), Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations, Appendix 1.a, a low-income population is a population having a median household income at or below the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) poverty guidelines. Although DOT Order (a) directs DOT agencies to use DHHS poverty guidelines, this EA uses the Census Bureau s annual statistical poverty thresholds on income and poverty (Series P-60) to define low-income. This approach is consistent with paragraph 16.1a of FAA Order E. A minority population is a project-affected population that is comprised of Black, Hispanic, or Latino, Asian-American, American Indian and Alaskan Native individuals or Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander. Each, several, or all of these ethnic groups may live in geographic proximity to one another or may be geographically scattered or transient (e.g., migrant workers). The groups may be similarly affected by a proposed program, policy, or activity. Children s Health and Safety Risks A project that would pose disproportionate health and safety risks to children may result in significant impacts Environmental Consequences The potential socioeconomic, environmental justice, and children s health and safety risk impacts of the No Action Alternative and reasonable alternatives are discussed in this section No Action Alternative Socioeconomic The No Action Alternative would not result in any changes to the surface roadway system providing access to the Airport. An increase in vehicle trips on the system would occur due to increased passenger demand and Airport use that would occur without the project. The average delay at intersections in the Regional Study Area (specifically the Airline Drive / Airport Access Road intersection) would increase commensurate with that forecasted increase in passengers. However, all intersections in the Regional Study Area would continue to operate at acceptable LOSs (see Table 5-18 and Table 5-19 for No Action Alternative intersection LOS levels for 2018 and 2023). The No Action Alternative would not relocate people, community businesses, or cause a substantial change in the community tax base. Environmental Justice In meeting its forecasted passenger demands, the Airport would continue to affect the resources and populations in the Airport Study Area and the Regional Study Area. The effects would occur without the project as the Airport serves its forecasted operational and passenger demands. Therefore, if any Airport-related disproportionate effects on low-income or minority communities 62 Federal Aviation Administration, Order E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, Change 1, March 20,

190 are occurring, those effects would continue. The Airport s continued use of best management practices and operational mitigation would reduce those impacts as much as possible. Children s Health and Safety Risks The implementation of the No Action Alternative would not affect any school or recreational area within Airport Study Area or Regional Study Area. Thus, no significant children s health or safety impacts would occur with the implementation of the No Action Alternative. Table 5-18 CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR 2018 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE Time Period Measure Overall Jerome S Glazer / Airport Access Road Airport Access Road Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service B B - - A Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service B A - - B Delay (sec/veh) Time Period Measure Overall Airline Drive Airport Access Road Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service A A A - - B B Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service B C A - - B C Delay (sec/veh) Time Period Measure Overall Airline Drive Airport Road Southbound Eastbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service B D D A C B A C C A B B - Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service C D C B C C A C C A C B - Delay (sec/veh)

191 Table 5-18 CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR 2018 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE (cont.) Time Period Measure Overall Airline Drive Hollandey Street Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service B C - B B A C A - Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service B C - C B A C A - Delay (sec/veh) Time Period Measure Overall Williams Boulevard Veterans Memorial Boulevard Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service C C C A C C B C C C D E C Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service D E E A D D B E C C D E D Delay (sec/veh) Time Period Measure Overall Airport Access Road Veterans Memorial Boulevard Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service B B - A B - B A - Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service B B - B C - C B - Delay (sec/veh)

192 Table 5-18 CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR 2018 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE (cont.) Time Period Measure Overall Loyola Drive Veterans Memorial Boulevard Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service B C B A C C B A B A Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service C D C B C C C A B A Delay (sec/veh) Time Period Measure Overall Loyola Drive I-10 Westbound Service Road Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service B B C - B A C A B Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service B C C - B A D C B Delay (sec/veh) Time Period Measure Overall Loyola Drive I-10 Eastbound Service Road Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service C - C B C B - C A B Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service C - D D D B - D C B Delay (sec/veh)

193 Table 5-18 CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR 2018 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE (cont.) Time Period Measure Overall Bainbridge Street Veterans Memorial Boulevard Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service A C - A B A B A - Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service B C - A B A B A - Delay (sec/veh) LOS Legend: A: Free-flowing: Traffic moves at or above posted speed limit. Unrestricted maneuverability between lanes. B: Reasonably free-flowing: Traffic moves at LOS A speeds. Slight restrictions in maneuverability C: Stable flow/near free-flow: Noticeable decrease in lane maneuverability. Target LOS for most urban areas. D: Approaching usable flow: Speed slightly decreases as volume slightly increases. Very limit maneuverability between lanes. Common on most urban roads. E: Unstable flow, operating at capacity: Speeds rarely meet posted limit. No gaps to maneuver. Common standard for larger urban area. F: Forced, breakdown flow: Vehicles follow vehicle in front at slow speed. Travel unpredictable because demand exceeds roadway capacity. Road constantly jammed. Source: Atkins

194 Table 5-19 CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR 2023 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE Time Period Measure Overall Jerome S Glazer / Airport Access Road Airport Access Road Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service B B - - A Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service B A - - B Delay (sec/veh) Time Period Measure Overall Airline Drive Airport Access Road Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service A A A - - B B Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service B D A - - C C Delay (sec/veh) Time Period Measure Overall Airline Drive Airport Road Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service B C D B C A A C C A B B - Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service D D D B C B A E E A C B - Delay (sec/veh)

195 Table 5-19 CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR 2023 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE (cont.) Time Period Measure Overall Airline Drive Hollandey Street Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service B C - B B B B A - Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service C C - C D D C A - Delay (sec/veh) Time Period Measure Overall Williams Boulevard Veterans Memorial Boulevard Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service C C C A C D B D C C E E C Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service E F F C E E B E C C D F D Delay (sec/veh) Time Period Measure Overall Airport Access Road Veterans Memorial Boulevard Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service B B - A B - B A - Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service B B - B C - C B - Delay (sec/veh)

196 Table 5-19 CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR 2023 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE (cont.) Time Period Measure Overall Loyola Drive Veterans Memorial Boulevard Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service B C B B C C D A B A Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service C D C B C C C A B A Delay (sec/veh) Time Period Measure Overall Loyola Drive I-10 Westbound Service Road Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service B B C - - B A C A B Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service C C C - - B A D A C Delay (sec/veh) Time Period Measure Overall Loyola Drive I-10 Eastbound Service Road Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service C - C C C B - C A B Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service C - D C D B - D D B Delay (sec/veh)

197 Table 5-19 CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR 2023 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE (cont.) Time Period Measure Overall Bainbridge Street Veterans Memorial Boulevard Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service A C - A B B B A - Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service B C - A B B B A - Delay (sec/veh) LOS Legend: A: Free-flowing: Traffic moves at or above posted speed limit. Unrestricted maneuverability between lanes. B: Reasonably free-flowing: Traffic moves at LOS A speeds. Slight restrictions in maneuverability C: Stable flow/near free-flow: Noticeable decrease in lane maneuverability. Target LOS for most urban areas. D: Approaching usable flow: Speed slightly decreases as volume slightly increases. Very limit maneuverability between lanes. Common on most urban roads. E: Unstable flow, operating at capacity: Speeds rarely meet posted limit. No gaps to maneuver. Common standard for larger urban area. F: Forced, breakdown flow: Vehicles follow vehicle in front at slow speed. Travel unpredictable because demand exceeds roadway capacity. Road constantly jammed. Source: Atkins

198 Refurbishment Alternative Socioeconomic Similar to the No Action Alternative, the Refurbishment Alternative would not result in any physical changes to the surface roadway system providing access to the Airport. As with the No Action Alternative, an increase in vehicle trips on the surface roadway system would happen with or without proposed improvements. The increased trip levels would occur as the Airport continues to meet the forecasted aviation demands. This alternative s 3,500-space long-term parking lot on the north side of the Airport would increase vehicular traffic along Aberdeen Street because it would be the sole access across Canal 14 to the proposed parking lot. As a result, increased passenger vehicle and shuttle bus traffic would occur along Aberdeen Street to Loyola Drive and Veterans Memorial Drive. Therefore, the parking lot would affect the average delay at intersections in the Airport Study Area and the Regional Study Area. Although project-related traffic on Aberdeen Street would increase, that traffic is not expected to significantly affect the north side neighborhoods to the north of the Airport or the intersections noted previously. This is because the Refurbishment Alternative would not: physically alter Aberdeen Street, Loyola Drive, Veterans Memorial Drive, or any streets in neighborhoods on the north side of the Airport; affect existing connections among the neighborhoods east and west of Aberdeen Street, transit stops, and pedestrian facilities; cause substantial traffic increases in neighborhoods north of the Airport and east of Aberdeen Street; and in addition proposed improvements to an existing Airport service road adjacent to the proposed location of the north side lot and its junction with Aberdeen Street would enhance traffic flows onto and off Aberdeen Street. All intersections in the Airport Study Area and Regional Study Area would continue to operate at acceptable LOSs with the Refurbishment Alternative. Table 5-20 and Table 5-21 provides the Refurbishment Alternative intersection LOS levels for 2018 and Construction-related traffic would occur on Aberdeen Street, Airline Drive, Bainbridge Street, and Veterans Memorial Drive during the Refurbishment Alternative s re-development of the terminal, parking facilities, and ancillary facilities (see Chapter 3, Alternatives). The temporary construction traffic, which would include passenger vehicles for construction workers, construction equipment, and trucks delivering construction materials, would be intermittent and associated with the various phases of the lot s and access road s construction. The implementation of a construction traffic plan would mitigate any effects that construction traffic would have on the neighborhoods and other land uses in the Airport Study Area and Regional Study Area. Operationally, the Airport s aircraft traffic would not change. Aircraft would continue to taxi to the south side of the Airport as they presently do. Existing runway usage would continue. Finally, the Refurbishment Alternative would not require people or businesses to move. It would not cause a substantial change in the community tax base

199 Table 5-20 CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR 2018 REFURBISHMENT, SOUTHSIDE, AND WESTSIDE ALTERNATIVES Time Period Measure Overall Jerome S Glazer / Airport Access Road Airport Access Road Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service B B - - A Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service B A - - B Delay (sec/veh) Time Period Measure Overall Airline Drive Airport Access Road Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service A A A - - B B Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service B C A - - C C Delay (sec/veh) Time Period Measure Overall Airline Drive Airport Road Southbound Eastbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service B D D B C B A C C A B B - Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service C D D B C C A C C A B B - Delay (sec/veh)

200 Table 5-20 CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR 2018 REFURBISHMENT, SOUTHSIDE, AND WESTSIDE ALTERNATIVES (cont.) Time Period Measure Overall Airline Drive Hollandey Street Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service B C - B B A B A - Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service B C - C B B C A - Delay (sec/veh) Time Period Measure Overall Williams Boulevard Veterans Memorial Boulevard Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service C C C A C C B D C C D E D Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service D E E A D D B E C C D E D Delay (sec/veh) Time Period Measure Overall Airport Access Road Veterans Memorial Boulevard Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service B B - A B - B A - Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service B B - B C - D B - Delay (sec/veh)

201 Table 5-20 CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR 2018 REFURBISHMENT, SOUTHSIDE, AND WESTSIDE ALTERNATIVES (cont.) Time Period Measure Overall Loyola Drive Veterans Memorial Boulevard Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service B B B A C C C A B A Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service C D C B C C B A B A Delay (sec/veh) Time Period Measure Overall Loyola Drive I-10 Westbound Service Road Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service B B C - B A C A B Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service B C C - B A D A C Delay (sec/veh) Time Period Measure Overall Loyola Drive I-10 Eastbound Service Road Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service C - C C C B - C A B Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service C - D D D B - C D B Delay (sec/veh)

202 Table 5-20 CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR 2018 REFURBISHMENT, SOUTHSIDE. AND WESTSIDE ALTERNATIVES (cont.) Time Period Measure Overall Bainbridge Street Veterans Memorial Boulevard Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service A B - A B B B A - Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service B C - A B B B A - Delay (sec/veh) LOS Legend: A: Free-flowing: Traffic moves at or above posted speed limit. Unrestricted maneuverability between lanes. B: Reasonably free-flowing: Traffic moves at LOS A speeds. Slight restrictions in maneuverability C: Stable flow/near free-flow: Noticeable decrease in lane maneuverability. Target LOS for most urban areas. D: Approaching usable flow: Speed slightly decreases as volume slightly increases. Very limit maneuverability between lanes. Common on most urban roads. E: Unstable flow, operating at capacity: Speeds rarely meet posted limit. No gaps to maneuver. Common standard for larger urban area. F: Forced, breakdown flow: Vehicles follow vehicle in front at slow speed. Travel unpredictable because demand exceeds roadway capacity. Road constantly jammed. Source: Atkins

203 Table 5-21 CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR 2023 REFURBISHMENT, SOUTHSIDE, AND WESTSIDE ALTERNATIVES Time Period Measure Overall Jerome S Glazer / Airport Access Road Airport Access Road Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service B B - - A Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service B A - - B Delay (sec/veh) Time Period Measure Overall Airline Drive Airport Access Road Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service A A A - - B B Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service C E A - - C D Delay (sec/veh) Time Period Measure Overall Airline Drive Airport Road Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service B C C B C A A C C A B B - Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service D D D B C B A E E A C B - Delay (sec/veh)

204 Table 5-21 CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR 2023 REFURBISHMENT, SOUTHSIDE, AND WESTSIDE ALTERNATIVES (cont.) Time Period Measure Overall Airline Drive Hollandey Street Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service B C - B B B B A - Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service C C - C D D C A - Delay (sec/veh) Time Period Measure Overall Williams Boulevard Veterans Memorial Boulevard Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service C D C A C C B D C C D E C Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service E F F B E E B E C C D F D Delay (sec/veh) Time Period Measure Overall Airport Access Road Veterans Memorial Boulevard Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service B B - A B - B A - Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service C B - B C - D B - Delay (sec/veh)

205 Table 5-21 CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR 2023 REFURBISHMENT, SOUTHSIDE, AND WESTSIDE ALTERNATIVES (cont.) Time Period Measure Overall Loyola Drive Veterans Memorial Boulevard Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service B C C B C C D A B A Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service C E C B C C C A B A Delay (sec/veh) Time Period Measure Overall Loyola Drive I-10 Westbound Service Road Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service B B B - - B A C A B Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service B C C - - B A D A C Delay (sec/veh) Time Period Measure Overall Loyola Drive I-10 Eastbound Service Road Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service C - C C C B - C A B Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service C - D D D B - D C B Delay (sec/veh)

206 Table 5-21 CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR 2023 REFURBISHMENT, SOUTHSIDE, AND WESTSIDE ALTERNATIVES (cont.) Time Period Measure Overall Bainbridge Street Veterans Memorial Boulevard Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service A C - A B B B A - Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service B C - A B A B A - Delay (sec/veh) LOS Legend: A: Free-flowing: Traffic moves at or above posted speed limit. Unrestricted maneuverability between lanes. B: Reasonably free-flowing: Traffic moves at LOS A speeds. Slight restrictions in maneuverability C: Stable flow/near free-flow: Noticeable decrease in lane maneuverability. Target LOS for most urban areas. D: Approaching usable flow: Speed slightly decreases as volume slightly increases. Very limit maneuverability between lanes. Common on most urban roads. E: Unstable flow, operating at capacity: Speeds rarely meet posted limit. No gaps to maneuver. Common standard for larger urban area. F: Forced, breakdown flow: Vehicles follow vehicle in front at slow speed. Travel unpredictable because demand exceeds roadway capacity. Road constantly jammed. Source: Atkins

207 Environmental Justice As discussed previously, implementation of the Refurbishment Alternative would alter traffic LOSs on the north side of the Airport. However, this alternative would not alter existing aircraft operations. The neighborhoods north of the Airport have more low-income populations and a higher percentage of minority residents when compared to other geographic areas in the New Orleans metropolitan area. As noted previously, this alternative would increase passenger vehicle and shuttle bus traffic in this neighborhood where these people reside and work. However, this alternative would not constitute a significant impact on those residents and workers because there would be no deterioration in LOS and no disruption of neighborhoods. Although potential impacts are not significant, the NOAB proposes to implement measures to reduce projectrelated effects in the neighborhood north of the Airport. This includes, but is not limited to: install landscaping and a noise barrier to minimize any increase in traffic noise along the Aberdeen Street right-of-way (see Section 5.12, Noise). improve the parking lot access road and the road s intersection with Aberdeen Street to reduce the effects of the north side long-term parking on residences and businesses along Aberdeen Street), to help maintain acceptable LOSs at major intersections with Aberdeen Street, and address traffic-related air quality effects (see Section 5.1, Air Quality); and carry out other best traffic management practices to further ensure efficient movement of surface traffic. Children s Health and Safety Risks The implementation of the Refurbishment Alternative would not affect any school or recreational area within Regional Study Area. Thus, no significant children s health or safety impacts would occur with the implementation of the Refurbishment Alternative Southside Alternative Southside terminal improvements include partial demolition and redevelopment of the existing terminal building. The Alternative also includes some changes to the surface roadway system in the area of the terminal building. In addition, improved terminal area roadway access would enhance the use of proposed parking improvements on the south side of the Airport. Those improvements include expanding an existing, short-term parking lot to 3,000 spaces and adding a new 1,200-space parking lot. On the north side of the Airport, this alternative includes a 3,500-space long-term surface parking lot and improvements to an existing on-airport service road to access the parking lot. This parking lot is the same as that described for the Refurbishment Alternative and impacts associated with the Southside Alternative would be the same as those described for the Refurbishment Alternative (see Table 5-20 and Table 5-21). This alternative s effects on the Airport and Regional Study Areas Socioeconomic, Environmental Justice, and Children s Health and Safety Risks would be the same as those discussed in Section This is because access to the parking lot access and its use would be identical to those discussed in Section The Southside Alternative would include the same measures to reduce potential impacts and best management practices as noted in for the Refurbishment Alternative. As a result, the Southside Alternative would not 5-130

208 cause disproportionately high and adverse effect on low-income or minority communities. It would also not significantly affect children s health or safety risks. Construction-related traffic and aircraft operations as discussed in Section would also occur with the Southside Alternative. Finally, the Southside Alternative would not require people or businesses to move. It would not relocate people, community businesses, or cause substantial changes in the community tax base Westside Alternative The Westside Alternative would include developing a new 30-gate terminal west of the existing terminal at a location air-cargo operations currently occupy. Those operations would move to the north side of the Airport. Terminal Concourse D would be demolished, while Concourses B and C would be reused or demolished. Some changes to the surface roadway system in the terminal building area and elsewhere on-airport would occur, but off-airport changes are not proposed. See Chapter 3, Alternatives, for other south side parking, apron, and ancillary improvements associated with the Westside Alternative. The Westside Alternative includes a 3,500-space long-term parking lot north of the airfield. This parking lot is the same as that described for the Refurbishment Alternative and impacts associated with the Westside Alternative would be the same as those described for the Refurbishment Alternative (see Table 5-20 and Table 5-21). This alternative s effects on the Airport and Regional Study Areas Socioeconomic, Environmental Justice, and Children s Health and Safety would be the same as those discussed in Section This is because access to the parking lot access and its use would be identical to those discussed in Section The Westside Alternative would include the same measures to reduce potential impacts and best management practices as noted in for the Refurbishment Alternative. As a result, the Westside Alternative would not cause disproportionately high and adverse effect on low-income or minority communities. It would also not significantly affect children s health or safety risks. Construction-related traffic and aircraft operations as discussed in Section would also occur with the Westside Alternative. Finally, the Westside Alternative would not require people or businesses to move. It would not relocate people, community businesses, or cause substantial changes in the community tax base Northside Alternative (Sponsor s Proposed Action) As discussed in Chapter 3, Alternatives, this Alternative would move the terminal building, its concourses and commercial service operations to the north side of the Airport. A new, 4,000- space, north side, multi-story garage would add to the number of people that would access the Airport from Aberdeen Street. As a result, improvements to Loyola Drive and Aberdeen Street would be needed to serve the additional traffic to the Airport. Bainbridge Street improvements would occur to provide primary access for truck and delivery traffic to the north side terminal. New aprons and airfield changes, as discussed in Chapter 3, Alternatives, would be needed to serve the aircraft that would use the north side terminal

209 Socioeconomic The proposed improvements of the Northside Alternative would alter the traffic patterns in the area north of the Airport by creating an entrance road that would no longer make 27th Street a through street across Aberdeen Street. However, given the low existing volume of traffic on 27 th Street, the alteration of traffic would not be considered a significant impact. Agency and public scoping meetings (see Appendix J) and coordination with the Jefferson Parish School District (see Appendix B) ensured that these concerns have been addressed through consultation and public outreach. Compared to the No Action Alternative, the north side terminal would generate greater Airportrelated vehicular traffic on the north side of the Airport. However, a substantial number of people would continue to use parking areas, the consolidated rental car facility, and employee parking on the south side of the Airport. The number of pick-up and drop-off trips and vehicular trips to and from the short-term garage would alter traffic patterns along roadways on the north side of the Airport as discussed below Traffic Conditions and Operations Analysis: The projected 2018 and 2023 peak hour traffic intersection LOS associated with the Northside Alternative are presented in Table 5-22 and Table 5-23, respectively. This scenario includes Airport-related trips along with a 2-percent annual increase in background traffic. The 2-percent increase accounts for growth and development in the Regional Study Area. It is important to note that the increase in Airportrelated traffic would occur with or without the Northside Alternative. Table 5-24 provides a comparison of the intersection LOS for 2018 for the No Action Alternative, the Refurbishment / Southside / Westside Alternatives, and the Northside Alternative. As shown in that table, the overall LOSs for analyzed intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable LOSs except for the intersection of Airline Drive / Airport Access Road (LOS E in the pm peak hour) for the Northside Alternative Traffic Conditions and Operations Analysis: Projected 2023 peak hour traffic volumes were derived by applying a 1.5-percent annual growth rate to the 2018 traffic volumes due to growth and development in the Greater New Orleans area. Consistent with the 2018 scenario, long-term parking, rental car operations, and employee parking would remain on the south side of the Airport. Table 5-25 provides a comparison of the intersection LOS for 2023 for the No Action Alternative, the Refurbishment / Southside / Westside Alternatives, and the Northside Alternative. As shown in that table, the Northside Alternative would degrade the LOS at the Loyola Drive / Veterans Memorial Boulevard and the Loyola Drive / I-10 Eastbound intersections to an unacceptable LOS (e.g., LOS E) compared to the LOS for the No Action Alternative

210 Table 5-22 CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR 2018 NORTHSIDE ALTERNATIVE Time Period Measure Overall Jerome S Glazer / Airport Access Road Airport Access Road Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service A B - - A Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service A A - - A Delay (sec/veh) Time Period Measure Overall Airline Drive Airport Access Road Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service A A A - - B B Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service E D A - - D F Delay (sec/veh) Time Period Measure Overall Airline Drive Airport Road Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service C E A B C A A C C A B B - Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service C D B B D A A D D A B B - Delay (sec/veh)

211 Table 5-22 CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR 2018 NORTHSIDE ALTERNATIVE (cont.) Time Period Measure Overall Airline Drive Hollandey Street Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service A C - B B A B A - Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service B C - B B B C A - Delay (sec/veh) Time Period Measure Overall Williams Boulevard Veterans Memorial Boulevard Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service D E D A E D B D D C D E C Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service D E E A E D B F C C D F D Delay (sec/veh) Time Period Measure Overall Airport Access Road Veterans Memorial Boulevard Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service B B - A B - B B - Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service B D - A B - B A - Delay (sec/veh)

212 Table 5-22 CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR 2018 NORTHSIDE ALTERNATIVE (cont.) Time Period Measure Overall Loyola Drive Veterans Memorial Boulevard Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service C A E B D C D D D C C C A Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service D A D B E C C D E D D D F Delay (sec/veh) Time Period Measure Overall Loyola Drive I-10 Westbound Service Road Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service B B C - - B A C A B Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service D E D - - D B E A B Delay (sec/veh) Time Period Measure Overall Loyola Drive I-10 Eastbound Service Road Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service C - C C C C - C A B Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service D - D D D E - D C B Delay (sec/veh)

213 Table 5-22 CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR 2018 NORTHSIDE ALTERNATIVE (cont.) Time Period Measure Overall Bainbridge Street Veterans Memorial Boulevard Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service B C - A B B C A - Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service B C - B C C C A - Delay (sec/veh) LOS Legend: A: Free-flowing: Traffic moves at or above posted speed limit. Unrestricted maneuverability between lanes. B: Reasonably free-flowing: Traffic moves at LOS A speeds. Slight restrictions in maneuverability C: Stable flow/near free-flow: Noticeable decrease in lane maneuverability. Target LOS for most urban areas. D: Approaching usable flow: Speed slightly decreases as volume slightly increases. Very limit maneuverability between lanes. Common on most urban roads. E: Unstable flow, operating at capacity: Speeds rarely meet posted limit. No gaps to maneuver. Common standard for larger urban area. F: Forced, breakdown flow: Vehicles follow vehicle in front at slow speed. Travel unpredictable because demand exceeds roadway capacity. Road constantly jammed. Source: Atkins

214 Table 5-23 CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR 2023 NORTHSIDE ALTERNATIVE Time Period Measure Overall Jerome S Glazer / Airport Access Road Airport Access Road Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service B B - - A Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service A B - - A Delay (sec/veh) Time Period Measure Overall Airline Drive Airport Access Road Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service A A A - - B B Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service B B A - - B B Delay (sec/veh) Time Period Measure Overall Airline Drive Airport Road Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service C D A A C C A C C A B B - Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service B D D B D A A B B A C B - Delay (sec/veh)

215 Table 5-23 CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR 2023 NORTHSIDE ALTERNATIVE (cont.) Time Period Measure Overall Airline Drive Hollandey Street Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service B C - B B B B A - Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service B C - B C C D A - Delay (sec/veh) Time Period Measure Overall Williams Boulevard Veterans Memorial Boulevard Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service D E D A F D B D D D D E C Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service E F F C E D B F C C D F D Delay (sec/veh) Time Period Measure Overall Airport Access Road Veterans Memorial Boulevard Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service B B - A B - C B - Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service C D - B B - C A - Delay (sec/veh)

216 Table 5-23 CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR 2023 NORTHSIDE ALTERNATIVE (cont.) Time Period Measure Overall Loyola Drive Veterans Memorial Boulevard Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service D A E B D D D D D E C C A Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service E A F F F B C E E E D D D Delay (sec/veh) Time Period Measure Overall Loyola Drive I-10 Westbound Service Road Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service D B C - - C A F A A Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service E C D - - E C F A E Delay (sec/veh) Time Period Measure Overall Loyola Drive I-10 Eastbound Service Road Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service D - C B D D - E A F Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service E - E E D E - D E C Delay (sec/veh)

217 Table 5-23 CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR 2023 NORTHSIDE ALTERNATIVE (cont.) Time Period Measure Overall Bainbridge Street Veterans Memorial Boulevard Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right AM Peak Level of Service B C - A B A C A - Delay (sec/veh) PM Peak Level of Service B C - B C C B A - Delay (sec/veh) LOS Legend: A: Free-flowing: Traffic moves at or above posted speed limit. Unrestricted maneuverability between lanes. B: Reasonably free-flowing: Traffic moves at LOS A speeds. Slight restrictions in maneuverability C: Stable flow/near free-flow: Noticeable decrease in lane maneuverability. Target LOS for most urban areas. D: Approaching usable flow: Speed slightly decreases as volume slightly increases. Very limit maneuverability between lanes. Common on most urban roads. E: Unstable flow, operating at capacity: Speeds rarely meet posted limit. No gaps to maneuver. Common standard for larger urban area. F: Forced, breakdown flow: Vehicles follow vehicle in front at slow speed. Travel unpredictable because demand exceeds roadway capacity. Road constantly jammed. Source: Atkins

218 Table 5-24 COMPARISON OF 2018 INTERSECTION LOS FOR THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE, THE REFURBISHMENT / SOUTHSIDE / WESTSIDE ALTERNATIVES, AND THE NORTHSIDE ALTERNATIVE Intersection No Action Alternative Refurbishment, Southside, or Westside Alternatives Northside Alternative Jerome S. Glazer / Airport Access Road B / B B / B A / A Airline Drive / Airport Access Road A / B A / B A / E Airline Drive / Airport Road B / C B / C C / C Airline Drive / Hollandey Street B / B B / B A / B Williams Boulevard / Veterans Memorial Boulevard Airport Access Road / Veterans Memorial Boulevard Loyola Drive / Veterans Memorial Boulevard Loyola Drive / I-10 Westbound C / D C / D D / D B / B B / B B / B B / C B / C C / D B / B B / B B / D Loyola Drive / I-10 Eastbound C / C C / C C / D Bainbridge Street / Veterans Memorial Boulevard A / B A / B B / B NOTE: LOS for AM peak hour / LOS for PM peak hour (e.g., B / C). LOS Legend: A: Free-flowing: Traffic moves at or above posted speed limit. Unrestricted maneuverability between lanes. B: Reasonably free-flowing: Traffic moves at LOS A speeds. Slight restrictions in maneuverability C: Stable flow/near free-flow: Noticeable decrease in lane maneuverability. Target LOS for most urban areas. D: Approaching usable flow: Speed slightly decreases as volume slightly increases. Very limit maneuverability between lanes. Common on most urban roads. E: Unstable flow, operating at capacity: Speeds rarely meet posted limit. No gaps to maneuver. Common standard for larger urban area. F: Forced, breakdown flow: Vehicles follow vehicle in front at slow speed. Travel unpredictable because demand exceeds roadway capacity. Road constantly jammed. Source: Atkins

219 Table 5-25 COMPARISON OF 2023 INTERSECTION LOS FOR THE NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE, THE REFURBISHMENT / SOUTHSIDE / WESTSIDE ALTERNATIVES, AND THE NORTHSIDE ALTERNATIVE Intersection No Action Alternative Refurbishment, Southside, or Westside Alternatives Northside Alternative Jerome S. Glazer / Airport Access Road B / B B / B B / A Airline Drive / Airport Access Road A / B A / C A / B Airline Drive / Airport Road B / D B / D C / B Airline Drive / Hollandey Street B / C B / C C / C Williams Boulevard / Veterans Memorial Boulevard Airport Access Road / Veterans Memorial Boulevard Loyola Drive / Veterans Memorial Boulevard Loyola Drive / I-10 Westbound C / E C / E D / E B / B B / C C / C B / C B / C D / E B / C B / B B / C Loyola Drive / I-10 Eastbound C / C C / C D / E Bainbridge Street / Veterans Memorial Boulevard A / B A / B B / B NOTE: LOS for AM peak hour / LOS for PM peak hour (e.g., B / C). LOS Legend: A: Free-flowing: Traffic moves at or above posted speed limit. Unrestricted maneuverability between lanes. B: Reasonably free-flowing: Traffic moves at LOS A speeds. Slight restrictions in maneuverability C: Stable flow/near free-flow: Noticeable decrease in lane maneuverability. Target LOS for most urban areas. D: Approaching usable flow: Speed slightly decreases as volume slightly increases. Very limit maneuverability between lanes. Common on most urban roads. E: Unstable flow, operating at capacity: Speeds rarely meet posted limit. No gaps to maneuver. Common standard for larger urban area. F: Forced, breakdown flow: Vehicles follow vehicle in front at slow speed. Travel unpredictable because demand exceeds roadway capacity. Road constantly jammed. Source: Atkins

220 Construction traffic: Construction-related traffic would occur on Aberdeen Street, Airline Drive, Bainbridge Street, and Veterans Memorial Drive for development of a long-term surface parking lot. The construction traffic, which would include passenger vehicles for construction workers, construction equipment, and trucks delivering construction materials, would be intermittent and associated with the various phases of construction. The implementation of a construction traffic plan would mitigate any traffic-related effects that construction traffic would have on the neighborhood north of the Airport. The Northside Alternative would not relocate people, community businesses, or cause a substantial loss in the community tax base. Environmental Justice The Northside Alternative includes the development of a new terminal building, parking garage, and other related facilities on the north side of the Airport. These facilities, which would be relatively close to the residential neighborhood north of the Airport (i.e., Bainbridge, Crest View, Veterans Heights, and Susan Park), would be separated from the neighborhoods by Canal 14 and existing vegetation (Figure 3-4). Thus, the existing vegetation and structural facilities would screen the Northside Alternative from portions of these neighborhoods and minimal light emissions or visual impacts would occur. The construction of the new terminal building and other related facilities on the relatively undeveloped north side of the Airport would cause temporary noise, air quality, and construction traffic impacts on that side of the Airport. The impacts to north side neighborhoods would depend on the: phase of construction; type of construction equipment being used; relative proximity of the construction site to residential land uses; and time of day construction occurs. However, the implementation of a construction management plan would minimize these impacts and would not constitute a significant impact on the residential neighborhoods north of the Airport. As noted earlier, construction-related traffic would occur on Aberdeen Street, Airline Drive, Bainbridge Street, and Veterans Memorial Drive. The implementation of a construction traffic plan would mitigate traffic-related effects that construction traffic would have on the low-income and minority neighborhoods north of the Airport (see Section 5.4). The construction of a secondary connection along the Bainbridge Street right-of-way intended for Airport-related delivery truck and service traffic would not affect the residents in the neighborhoods north of the Airport. The land uses adjacent to the Bainbridge Street right-of-way are light industrial or commercial and there are no residential land uses along this right-of-way. Predominant means of access to residential areas is not along Bainbridge Street. Therefore, increases in traffic along the Bainbridge Street right-of-way would not affect residents north of the Airport since there are no residential land uses along this right-of-way and since access to residential areas is primarily from Veterans Memorial Boulevard. In addition, the traffic volumes along Bainbridge Street would remain at an acceptable LOS and would not affect the access to the light industrial and commercial uses along this right-of-way

221 The development of an airport entrance road to I-10 along the Loyola Drive / Aberdeen Street right-of-way has the potential to affect the neighborhoods north of the Airport as discussed below. This entrance road would require improvements to that rights-of-way along those existing roads. Since the NOAB owns the properties along those rights-of-way, no acquisition of parcels would be required to construct this entrance road. With the implementation of the airport entrance road to the Loyola Drive / Veterans Memorial Boulevard intersection (providing a connection to I-10), an increase in passenger vehicles and shuttle bus traffic servicing south side parking facilities would occur along Bainbridge Street and Veterans Memorial Drive. These streets also provide access to the residents of the neighborhoods immediately north of the Airport. The proposed improvements associated with the entrance road would alter the traffic patterns in the neighborhoods north of the Airport. Specifically, 27 th Street would no longer be a through street (see Figure 3-4). West of the entrance road, 27 th Street would terminate at Aberdeen Street. East of the entrance road, 27 th Street would become a cul-de-sac west of Decatur Street. This modification in traffic patterns would affect the connections between the neighborhoods west and east of the proposed entrance road. All connections between these neighborhoods, including pedestrian traffic, would be via Veterans Memorial Boulevard. However, given the low existing volume of traffic on 27 th Street, the alteration of traffic patterns is not considered to be an impact. For example, emergency response vehicles generally use Veterans Memorial Boulevard to access the neighborhood and do not use 27 th Street for general access. In addition, the scoping meetings did not reveal any concerns from neighborhood residents regarding the closure of 27 th Street. Similarly, school buses that travel through the intersection would be re-routed along Veterans Memorial Boulevard and local school officials do not consider this to be an impact (see Appendix B-11). The resulting increase in passenger vehicle and shuttle bus traffic would cause an increase in traffic noise for residents in close proximity to the proposed entrance road (see Section 5.13). However, the Northside Alternative would include the development of a ten-foot-tall continuous noise barrier on the east side of the entrance road that would mitigate traffic-related noise impacts for residents north of the Airport. The north side neighborhoods have higher percentage of low-income residents and a higher percentage of minority residents when compared to other geographic areas in the New Orleans metropolitan area. As noted above, the Northside Alternative would cause temporary, construction-related effects and permanent, increased passenger vehicle and shuttle bus traffic in the neighborhoods where these people reside and work. The vehicular traffic analyses and the analyses of air quality (Section 5.1) and hazardous materials (Section 5.8) effects indicate that the Northside Alternative would not cause significant impacts on the residents of the neighborhoods north of the Airport. However, as noted in noise analysis (see Section 5.12), the inclusion of the noise wall would not result in any traffic-related noise on these residents. Children s Health and Safety Risks The implementation of the Northside Alternative would not affect any school or recreational area within Regional Study Area. The Northside Alternative s use of best management practices 5-144

222 during construction and its traffic management plans would reduce potential impacts to children s health and safety risks. Thus, no significant children s health or safety impacts would occur with the implementation of the Northside Alternative Mitigation and Best Management Practices Socioeconomic Based on the results of the traffic operations analysis conducted for 2018 and 2023 projected traffic conditions, intersections within the Regional Study Area would need improvement. The following are the recommended improvements Recommended Improvements. Recommended improvements for 2018 include the following: (1) re-stripe through lane to be right-turn-only lane on westbound Veterans Memorial Boulevard at Loyola Drive; and (2) re-stripe northbound Loyola Drive at I-10 Eastbound Service Road to include two through lanes and one right-turn-only lane; and (3) two northbound receiving lanes for traffic from Airline Drive and widen a portion of the Airport Access Road to allow for merged traffic from Jerome Glazer Boulevard. With these improvements, the intersections are expected to operate at LOS D or better during peak hour conditions (see Table 5-26 for comparison of LOS in 2018 for the Northside Alternative without and with these recommended improvements) Recommended Improvements. Recommended improvements for 2023 include the following: (1) eastbound and westbound dual left-turn-only lanes on Veterans Memorial Boulevard at Loyola Drive; (2) two through lanes and a right-turn-only lane on southbound Loyola Drive at Veterans Memorial Boulevard; (3) two through lanes and one right-turn-only lane for northbound Airport entrance road at Veterans Memorial Boulevard; (4) three through lanes and a dual right-turn-only lane for northbound Loyola Drive at I-10 Eastbound Service Road; (5) dual left-turn-only lanes on I-10 Westbound Service Road at Loyola Drive; and (6) additional through lane for northbound Williams Boulevard at Veterans Memorial Boulevard. With these improvements, the intersections are expected to operate at LOS D or better during peak hour conditions (see Table 5-27 for comparison of LOS in 2018 for the Northside Alternative without and with these recommended improvements) Environmental Justice Based on the above in Section and information in other chapters addressing air quality, hazardous materials, and noise, the Airport sponsor would implement a construction management plan to minimize project-related construction effects, including potential effects on low-income and minority populations. Elements of the construction management plan would include: a construction traffic plan; a construction staging plan that includes control of hazardous materials (see Section 5.4); the use of noise baffling and low emissions construction equipment; and the implementation of best management practices to minimize dust, runoff, and construction-related and light-emission impacts

223 Table 5-26 COMPARISON OF 2018 INTERSECTION LOS FOR THE NORTHSIDE ALTERNATIVE WITHOUT AND WITH RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS Intersection Without Improvements With Improvements Jerome S. Glazer / Airport Access Road Airline Drive / Airport Access Road Airline Drive / Airport Road Airline Drive / Hollandey Street Williams Boulevard / Veterans Memorial Boulevard Airport Access Road / Veterans Memorial Boulevard Loyola Drive / Veterans Memorial Boulevard Loyola Drive / I-10 Westbound Loyola Drive / I-10 Eastbound Bainbridge Street / Veterans Memorial Boulevard A / A A / E C / C A / B D / D B / B C / D B / D C / D B / B B / A A / A C / C A / B D / D B / C C / D C / B C / D B / B NOTE: LOS for AM peak hour / LOS for PM peak hour (e.g., B / C). LOS Legend: A: Free-flowing: Traffic moves at or above posted speed limit. Unrestricted maneuverability between lanes. B: Reasonably free-flowing: Traffic moves at LOS A speeds. Slight restrictions in maneuverability C: Stable flow/near free-flow: Noticeable decrease in lane maneuverability. Target LOS for most urban areas. D: Approaching usable flow: Speed slightly decreases as volume slightly increases. Very limit maneuverability between lanes. Common on most urban roads. E: Unstable flow, operating at capacity: Speeds rarely meet posted limit. No gaps to maneuver. Common standard for larger urban area. F: Forced, breakdown flow: Vehicles follow vehicle in front at slow speed. Travel unpredictable because demand exceeds roadway capacity. Road constantly jammed. Source: Atkins

224 Table 5-27 COMPARISON OF 2023 INTERSECTION LOS FOR THE NORTHSIDE ALTERNATIVE WITHOUT AND WITH RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS Intersection Without Improvements With Improvements Jerome S. Glazer / Airport Access Road Airline Drive / Airport Access Road Airline Drive / Airport Road Airline Drive / Hollandey Street Williams Boulevard / Veterans Memorial Boulevard Airport Access Road / Veterans Memorial Boulevard Loyola Drive / Veterans Memorial Boulevard Loyola Drive / I-10 Westbound Loyola Drive / I-10 Eastbound Bainbridge Street / Veterans Memorial Boulevard B / A A / B C / B C / C D / E C / C D / E D / E D / E B / B B / B A / B C / B B / B D / D B / C C / C B / C C / C B / B NOTE: LOS for AM peak hour / LOS for PM peak hour (e.g., B / C). LOS Legend: A: Free-flowing: Traffic moves at or above posted speed limit. Unrestricted maneuverability between lanes. B: Reasonably free-flowing: Traffic moves at LOS A speeds. Slight restrictions in maneuverability C: Stable flow/near free-flow: Noticeable decrease in lane maneuverability. Target LOS for most urban areas. D: Approaching usable flow: Speed slightly decreases as volume slightly increases. Very limit maneuverability between lanes. Common on most urban roads. E: Unstable flow, operating at capacity: Speeds rarely meet posted limit. No gaps to maneuver. Common standard for larger urban area. F: Forced, breakdown flow: Vehicles follow vehicle in front at slow speed. Travel unpredictable because demand exceeds roadway capacity. Road constantly jammed. Source: Atkins

225 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 5-148

226 5.15 WATER QUALITY This section describes the potential impacts on surface and ground water in the Airport and Regional Study Areas. It also describes the laws and regulations applicable to the No Action Alternative and the reasonable alternatives, how those actions would unavoidably affect water quality, and measures to mitigate those effects Background Several laws and presidential Executive Orders address and regulate Federal airport activities and their effects on water quality. The following paragraphs list and summarize the requirements of the laws most applicable to airport projects. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by the Clean Water Act (CWA) 63 ; CWA, as amended by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) 64 ; The Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended, (SWDA) 65 ; and The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1980 (FWCA) 66. CWA: The law s purpose is to maintain and restore the biotic, chemical, and physical characteristics of the nation s waters. As a result, Congress mandated the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and states develop procedures and standards that prevent, reduce, and remove water pollution in the navigable waters of the United States. Various sections of the Act address the array of water quality issues affecting those waters. For example, two sections that often apply to airport development are: Section 402 established the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The NPDES regulates waters flowing through pipes, ditches, or other conveyances that discharge as point sources to waters of the U.S. Point sources include discharges from construction sites disturbing more than 1 acre and storm water from airfields. Section 404 addresses the unavoidable dredging and filling of navigable waters. Airport projects often affect those waters because FAA design standards require placing certain aviation facilities (i.e., runways, taxiways, aprons, navigational aids) at certain locations to promote safe, efficient air transportation. This Environmental Assessment (EA) notes Louisiana is a state to which the USEPA has delegated NPDES Program authority. The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) issued a Louisiana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (LPDES) Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharges to the New Orleans Aviation Board (NOAB) on May 4, The permit expires in May Section 6.S of the Permit discusses the requirements for the Air Transportation sector. Under Section 303(d), List of Impaired Waters, of the CWA, states, territories, and authorized tribes are required to develop lists of impaired waters. These impaired waters do not meet water quality standards that states, territories, and authorized tribes have set for them, even after point U.S.C. Chapter U.S.C. Section 1252 et. seq U.S.C. 300.f U.S.C. Section 661 et. seq

227 sources of pollution have installed the minimum required levels of pollution control technology. The term "303(d) list" is shorthand for the list of impaired and threatened waters (stream/river segments, lakes) that the CWA requires all states to submit for EPA approval every two years on even-numbered years. The states identify all waters where required pollution controls are not sufficient to attain or maintain applicable water quality standards. In addition, the states establish priorities for development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) based on the severity of the pollution and the sensitivity of the uses to be made of the waters, among other factors (40 CFR 130.7(b)(4)). States then provide a long-term plan for completing TMDLs within eight to 13 years from first listing. Louisiana s water quality certification regulations, developed under Louisiana s Water Quality Control Law, apply to all projects needing Federal licenses or permits. The regulations include procedures for issuance, modification, and revocation of water quality certifications, including application requirements and public notice requirements. In Louisiana, five categories of activities require CWA 401 certification. These include: oil and gas activities, commercial projects, private non-profit projects, residential development, and government (municipal) projects. DEQ administers the 401 certification program statewide. The proposed changes to the Airport fall under the government projects category. OPA: This amendment to the CWA (Section 311, Oil and Hazardous Substances Liability) requires owners and operators of facilities that store petroleum or petroleum-based products to prepare plans to respond to spills of oil or oil-based products. SWDA: This act protects sole source aquifers and areas recharging them. EPA must review certain projects within designated areas to ensure that Federally-financed projects within those areas do not endanger the water source. The EPA defines a sole or principal source aquifer as one which supplies at least fifty percent (50%) of the drinking water consumed in the area overlying the aquifer. These areas can have no alternative drinking water source(s) which could physically, legally, and economically supply all those who depend upon the aquifer for drinking water. Sole Source Aquifers are regulated under Section 1424(e), Interim Regulations of Underground Injections, of the SDWA. Since none of the alternatives under consideration would affect a sole source aquifer, this EA does not address this law further (see Chapter 4). FWCA: The act requires a Federal agency to coordinate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) when a project under an agency s purview would control (i.e., impound, divert, drain) a stream or other water body Regulatory Context The Federal regulations noted below guide the management of water quality in the State of Louisiana and the U.S. They are based on the laws noted in Section CFR Part 122, EPA Administered Permit Programs: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, implements the NPDES portion of the CWA to control the discharge of point source pollutant discharges (i.e., aircraft deicing fluid runoff; sewage; chemical waste); 33 CFR Part 323, Permits for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material into Waters of the United States, implements the portion of the CWA addressing the dredging or filling of waters of the United States. These regulations would apply to an airport project that must meet FAA design standards unavoidably require the dredging or filling of waters of the United States

228 40 CFR Part 110, Discharge of Oil, addresses the prohibition of oil or oil-based products into waters of the United States or shorelines adjacent to those waters. The regulations address discharges that would violate water quality standards, cause discoloration or sheens on those waters, or cause sludge to form under the water surface. In addition to the above Federal regulations, the DEQ has issued water regulations to protect the state s waters at Title 33, Part 9 of the Louisiana Environmental Regulatory Code. LADEQ has done so per the Louisiana Environmental Policy Act and because the U.S. Congress has delegated water quality protection to the states. Louisiana s water quality standards must equal or exceed the regulations the EPA has set to protect the Nation s water quality Methodology Water quality regulations and consultation with agencies responsible for issuing water-related permits normally identify issues associated with project-related water quality. Per the instructions in FAA Order E, Change 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, Appendix A, Section 17, the preparers of this EA have consulted (see Appendix B-2): the USEPA (Region 6) to determine if the project would affect a sole source aquifer; the DEQ about applicable water quality standards to determine the severity of projectrelated water quality effects; and the USFWS and DEQ for information on the water quality needed to sustain wildlife, fish, and shellfish in the Airport Study Area. In addition, the NOAB has coordinated with local agencies regarding drainage and water quality issues (see Appendix B-6). In addition, the NOAB has prepared briefing materials associated with drainage and water quality (see Appendix I). The potential impacts to water quality for each alternative were assessed based on the location and preliminary plans. The proposed disturbed areas and new impervious areas were analyzed to evaluate the impacts due to construction and operations to surface waters. Section 5.16 of this EA discusses project-related wetland effects Threshold of Significance FAA Order E, Change 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, Appendix A, Section 17.3 states a significant water quality effect may occur if the EA and early consultation: show that there is a potential to exceed water quality standards; identify water quality problems that cannot be avoided or satisfactorily mitigated; or indicate difficulties in obtaining required permits Environmental Consequences No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative is anticipated to have no direct or indirect impact on water quality beyond those that occur now or that would occur in the future. This is because no new impervious surfaces would be constructed and no would land be disturbed. Consequently, no significant impacts to water quality, including groundwater, surface water bodies, public water supply systems, or Federal, state, or Tribal waters are anticipated

229 Refurbishment Alternative The Refurbishment Alternative proposes interior renovations to the existing terminal building as well as the development of additional parking facilities and improved roadways. The Refurbishment Alternative would result in a total of approximately 28.0 acres of new impervious surfaces. The Refurbishment Alternative would need to comply with the LPDES Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharges issued to the NOAB on May 4, Doing so would ensure the Refurbishment Alternative does not adversely affect the quality of waters receiving the increase in stormwater runoff. The Refurbishment Alternative would also require an LPDES permit for runoff during construction because it would disturb more than one acre. During construction, compliance with that permit and incorporating accepted Best Management Practices (BMPs) (see Section ) would reduce the Alternative s potential impacts on water quality in nearby waterways. BMPs are the most effective practices or combinations of practices that would reduce non-point source pollutants to levels that meet established water quality goals. The Refurbishment Alternative s additional impervious surface area would increase the volume of runoff to the on-site drainage system and into the adjacent drainage canals. Even with the implementation of the proposed pump station and discharge basin, described in Section 4.14, additional drainage improvements would be needed to ensure water quality (see Section ). Drainage in this area would be rerouted and measures taken to ensure that untreated runoff from the impervious surfaces would not negatively impact water quality in the nearby drainage canal. This would also ensure the Refurbishment Alternative s runoff would be integrated into the Jefferson Parish and City of Kenner s drainage systems, which is an intricate, complex system of levees, floodwalls, canals and drainage pump stations. The parking area and proposed roadway improvements on the northern portion of the Airport would affect an existing drainage ditch. The Refurbishment Alternative would require rerouting drainage in this area. As a result, measures as described in Section , would be needed to ensure that untreated runoff from the long-term surface parking lot would not negatively affect water quality in the nearby drainage canal. Based upon the above information no significant impacts to water quality, including groundwater, surface water bodies, public water supply systems, sole source aquifers, or Federal, state, or Tribal waters are anticipated within the Airport Study Area or Regional Study Area Southside Alternative The Southside Alternative proposes redevelopment of the terminal, as well as demolition of Concourse A and demolition and reconstruction of Concourses B and C. Improvements to terminal access roads, expansion of parking facilities, demolition and construction of apron space as well as the construction of ancillary, on-airport facilities also would occur. The Southside Alternative would result in approximately 29.7 acres of new impervious surfaces. Similar to the Refurbishment Alternative, the construction activities associated with this Alternative would need to comply with the LPDES Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharges issued to the NOAB on May 4, 2011, and would also require an LPDES permit for runoff during construction. During construction, it would be necessary to incorporate accepted 5-152

230 BMPs (see Section ) to reduce construction impacts on water quality in nearby waterways. Similar to the Refurbishment Alternative, additional drainage improvements would be needed aside from the proposed pump station and discharge basin to ensure water quality (see Section ). This would ensure that untreated runoff from the additional impervious surfaces does not negatively affect water quality in the nearby drainage canal or adversely affect Jefferson Parish or City of Kenner drainage systems, which are an intricate, complex system of levees, floodwalls, canals and drainage pump stations. As stated above, BMPs would be used and guidelines followed as required by the Airport s current LPDES Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharges. Therefore, based upon the above information, no significant impacts to water quality, including groundwater, surface water bodies, public water supply systems, sole source aquifers, or Federal, state, or Tribal waters within the Airport Study Area or Regional Study Area are anticipated Westside Alternative The Westside Alternative proposes a new terminal with three concourses, west of the existing terminal. This Alternative also includes improvements to terminal access roads, expansion of parking facilities, demolition and construction of apron space, and the relocation of an existing on-airport cargo facility. This Alternative would result in approximately 88.1 acres of new impervious surfaces. The construction activities associated with this Alternative would need to comply with the LPDES Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharges issued to the NOAB on May 4, 2011, and would also require an LPDES permit for runoff during construction. During construction, it would be necessary to incorporate accepted BMPs (see Section ) to reduce the impact of construction on water quality in nearby waterways. Similar to the Refurbishment Alternative, additional drainage improvements would be needed aside from the proposed pump station and discharge basin, to ensure that untreated runoff from the additional impervious surfaces does not negatively affect water quality in the nearby drainage canal (see Section ). Implementation of BMPs and guidelines, as required by the Airport s current LPDES Multi- Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharges, would ensure no significant water quality effects would occur within the Airport Study Area or Regional Study Area Northside Alternative (Sponsor s Proposed Action) The Northside Alternative includes the development of a new terminal and three concourses on the north side of the Airport. Access to the new terminal would be on existing roadways, and a new four-lane, divided boulevard that would be built on existing Airport-owned right-of-way. The boulevard would be designed to accommodate the new traffic demand on the north side of the Airport from new terminal. A secondary access to the new facilities for delivery and service traffic serving the Airport would be provided via existing Bainbridge Street, which would also require improvements

231 The Alternative also involves expanding existing parking facilities, demolishing and constructing taxiways, and building aprons to serve the new terminal. This Alternative would result in approximately 39.3 acres of new impervious surfaces. The Northside Alternative would need to comply with the LPDES Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharges issued to the NOAB on May 4, It would also require an LPDES permit for runoff during construction. Using accepted BMPs (see Section ) would further reduce construction effects on water quality in nearby waterways. Similar to the Refurbishment Alternative, additional drainage improvements would be needed aside from the proposed pump station and discharge basin to ensure that untreated runoff from the additional impervious surfaces does not negatively affect water quality in the nearby drainage canal (see Section ). Implementation of BMPs and guidelines, as required by the Airport s current LPDES Multi- Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharges, would prevent significant water quality impacts Mitigation and Best Management Practices Each alternative has the potential to cause water quality impacts. For example, water pollution may arise during the project primarily from erosion of exposed land surfaces. However, water quality impacts would be satisfactorily mitigated as described below. Compliance with LPDES permit requirements and implementation of BMPs would mitigate water pollution impacts. Construction and operational contracts would include appropriate BMPs. The use of erosion and sedimentation controls and other measures throughout the construction period would minimize project-related water quality effects. Erosion and sedimentation controls usually consist of silt fencing; sediment traps (less than five acre drainage area); sediment basins (more than 5 acres of drainage area); erosion control blankets on steep slopes and swales; inlet protection; and seeding and mulching. Applicable provisions within FAA Advisory Circular 150/ E, Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports, Item P156, Temporary Air and Water Pollution, Soil Erosion, and Siltation Control, would be incorporated into project specifications to further minimize impacts to adjacent or nearby waters and properties. As a result, the Airport Sponsor would require its construction contractor to submit, for approval, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with the LPDES requirements prior to beginning the project. This Plan would outline the contractor s erosion and sediment control practices, as well as their good housekeeping methods for waste disposal and spill prevention. Good housekeeping practices reduce the possibility of accidental spills, improve the response time if spills occur, and reduce safety hazards. Examples of good housekeeping on a construction project may include the following: Materials Management: Neat and orderly storage of any chemicals, pesticides, fertilizers, fuels, other substances being stored at the site. Waste Disposal: Regular garbage, rubbish, construction waste, and sanitary waste disposal. Spill Response: Prompt cleanup of any spills of hydraulic fluids, liquid or dry materials that have occurred

232 Off-site Tracking: Cleanup of sediments that have been tracked by vehicles or have been transported by wind or storm water about the site or onto nearby roadways. The SWPPP would also include BMPs to minimize the potential for fuel/oil spills during construction. Such practices typically include the following: Designation of a centralized fueling and storage area for all equipment. Where feasible, construction of leak containment around fueling areas. Appropriate location of equipment and materials to rapidly clean-up petroleum spills in fueling areas and on fuel trucks. Performance of regular preventative maintenance on all equipment to prevent leaks. Coordination with the DEQ would ensure that LPDES Multi-Sector General Permit is obtained and proper procedures followed. As a result of the above measures, final project design would incorporate stormwater management facilities and techniques to minimize water quality impacts

233 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 5-156

234 5.16 WETLANDS This section discusses jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional wetlands. The section also describes the laws and regulations applicable to the No Action Alternative and the reasonable alternatives Background The Clean Water Act (CWA) defines wetlands as: those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. 67 Wetlands are productive parts of the landscape. They are important to watershed and biotic health. Wetlands absorb floodwaters, supply base flow, protect shorelines, trap sediments, recharge groundwater, and provide habitat for fish and wildlife. Wetlands are considered to be jurisdictional or non-jurisdictional. Jurisdictional wetlands are those wetlands that are parts of or affect the navigable waters of the United States. 68 The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates dredge and fill activities in jurisdictional wetlands under Section 404 of the CWA. Non-jurisdictional wetlands are not connected to navigable waters. Federal and State agencies including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), USACE, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) oversee actions in both wetland categories. Several laws and Executive Orders address and regulate Federal airport activities and their effects on wetlands. The following paragraphs list and summarize the requirements of the laws most applicable to airport projects. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended by the CWA; 69 The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1980 (FWCA); 70 Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands. 71 CWA: The law s purpose is to maintain and restore the biotic, chemical, and physical characteristics of the Nation s waters. As a result, Congress required Federal agencies to develop procedures to prevent, reduce, and remove water pollution (including wetlands) in the navigable waters of the United States. Section 404 of the Act addresses the unavoidable dredging and filling of navigable waters. Airport projects often unavoidably affect wetlands. This is because FAA design standards require placing certain aviation facilities (i.e., runways, Environmental Laboratory, Corps of Engineers Delineation Manual, Technical Report 87-1, Navigable waters are those waters affected by the ebb and flow of tides, and that are or have been used for interstate commerce. 33 U.S.C. Chapter U.S.C. Section 661. Vol. 42, Federal Register, page 26961, May

235 taxiways, aprons, navigational aids) at certain locations to promote safe, efficient air transportation. The USACE regulates discharges to waters of the United States under its authority to administer Section 404 of the CWA. A permit under Section 404 is required to dredge jurisdictional wetlands or to place fill in them. FWCA: The Act requires a Federal agency to coordinate with USFWS when a project under an agency s purview would control (i.e., impound, divert, drain) a stream or other water body. Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands: This Order requires Federal agencies to protect, preserve and enhance the Nation s jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional wetlands to the fullest extent practicable. As a result, Federal actions avoid or minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of those wetlands if possible. Agencies do so by evaluating practicable alternatives that avoid wetlands. If avoidance is not possible, agencies must ensure project designs and mitigation minimize the unavoidable effects. In addition to protections offered under Section 404 of the CWA, Louisiana protects coastal wetlands under the State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act. The Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Act and the Coastal Protection, Conservation, Restoration and Management Act establish wetlands protection and restoration efforts in Louisiana. The Coastal Zone Management section of this document provides more information on coastal resources. Section 404 of the CWA differs from the Louisiana Coastal Resources Program (LCRP) in both analysis and interpretation of coastal wetlands. In most instances, USACE and LCRP jurisdictional delineations coincide in coastal marsh habitats, where elevations do not reach or exceed five feet (except for natural ridges and man-made spoil deposits). Differences in Federal and State programs occur most often in upper estuarine basins. It is there that the five-foot contour will most often appropriately delineate the LCRP s jurisdictional boundary Regulatory Context The following regulations require consultation with agencies responsible for issuing Section 404 permits or for protecting wetlands. State and local regulations also address wetland protection. In addition, required public input provides valuable information about wetland-related issues and concerns. Federal regulations addressing wetlands are: 33 CFR Part 323, Permits for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material into Waters of the United States, which implements the portion of the CWA addressing the dredging or filling of waters of the United States, including jurisdictional wetlands. Department of Transportation Order A, Preservation of the Nation s Wetlands, sets forth USDOT policy on jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional wetlands. FAA, as a USDOT agency, must meet the policy. As a result, FAA ensures airport planning, construction, and operation minimizes unavoidable effects on wetlands. 72 Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Regulatory Approach To Wetland Delineation, available at: Accessed March 6,

236 A wetland may be jurisdictional under Federal regulations in some instances due to the wetland s connection to interstate commerce. In other cases, a wetland may be nonjurisdictional because it has no such connection. The designation of a wetland does not rely on its jurisdiction or non-jurisdictional status. Instead, the technical definition of a wetland depends on whether the area s soils, vegetation, and hydrology meet certain criteria. Such delineations are determined according to the USACE s Wetlands Delineation Manual Early coordination comments received from the DEQ, dated January 10, 2013, stated any project work located in USACE s jurisdiction require consultation with the USACE regarding permitting issues. If the project requires a USACE permit, part of the application process may involve a water quality certification from DEQ Methodology This EA uses the laws and regulations noted above and FAA Order E, Change 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, Appendix A, Section 18.2 details responsibilities as follows: Early review of proposed actions will be conducted with agencies with special interest in wetlands. If the action requires an EA, but it would not affect wetlands, the EA should contain a statement to that effect. In that case, no wetland impact analysis is needed. The EA includes information on the location, types, and extent of wetland areas that might be affected by the proposed action. This information can be obtained from the USFWS or State or local natural resource agencies. If the action would affect wetlands and there is a practicable alternative that avoids wetlands, this alternative becomes the environmentally preferred alternative, provided there are no other overriding environmental impacts. The EA should state that the original project would have affected wetlands, but selection of the practicable alternative enabled the project proponent to avoid the wetlands. If the action would affect wetlands and there is no practicable alternative, all practical means should be employed to minimize the wetland impacts due to runoff, construction, sedimentation, land use, or other reason. The EA must contain a description of proposed mitigations, with the understanding that a detailed mitigation plan must be developed to the satisfaction of the 404 permitting agency in consultation with those agencies having an interest in the affected wetland. Field examinations at the Airport were conducted within the Airport Study Area on February 28, 2013 and August 2, Based upon the initial field survey, two areas of interest and six test unit sites were identified for initial wetland assessment, as described in the Wetland Report, see Appendix D. The NOAB submitted correspondence to the USACE detailing impacts associated with the Proposed Action and reasonable alternatives, potential compensatory mitigation options (permittee-responsible, banking, and/or in-lieu fee), and requested concurrence with those 73 U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers, Wetlands Research Program Technical Report Y-87-1, Corps Of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (1987)

237 options (see Appendix B-10). Further detail on the potential mitigation options is in Section The NOAB has requested a Jurisdictional Determination from the USACE, and has submitted a Section 404 permit application. An initial response, which acknowledges the request and submittal, from the USACE is included in Appendix B-10. Initiation of the proposed action will not begin until the USACE makes a Jurisdictional Determination and issues a Section 404 permit Thresholds of Significance FAA Order E, Change 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, Appendix A, Section 18.3 states that a significant impact would occur when a project would: adversely affect a wetland s ability to protect the quality or quantity of municipal water supplies, including sole source, potable water aquifers; substantially alter the wetland hydrology needed to sustain the functions and values of the affected wetland or any wetland to which the affected wetland is connected; substantially reduce the affected wetland s ability to retain floodwaters or storm associated runoff, thereby threatening public health, safety or welfare (this includes cultural, recreational, and scientific resources important to the public, or property); adversely affect the maintenance of natural systems that support wildlife and fish habitat or economically-important timber, food, or fiber resources in the affected or surrounding wetlands; promote development of secondary activities or services that would affect the resources or functions mentioned in the above items; or be inconsistent with applicable State wetland strategies Environmental Consequences The affects described below are based on the wetland survey results described in Section No Action Alternative No ground disturbance would occur with the implementation of the No Action Alternative. Thus, the No Action Alternative would have not affect wetlands (see Figure 4-13 for the location of existing wetlands). Therefore, none of the thresholds of significance described in Section would occur Refurbishment Alternative The Refurbishment Alternative proposes interior renovations to the existing terminal building as well as the development of additional parking facilities and improved roadways. The Refurbishment Alternative would result in approximately 1.5 acres of adverse impacts on portions of a wooded tract that are classified as scrub-shrub wetlands (see Figure 4-13 for the location of existing wetlands). Before assessing final impacts and proposed mitigation, the USACE would have to issue a Jurisdictional Determination (JD) for the project area. However, the thresholds of significance 5-160

238 as described in Section would not be crossed due to the following reasons: the 1.5 acres of impact would not adversely affect the wetland s ability to protect the quality or quantity of municipal water supplies as the wetland area does not play a significant role in the area s water supplies; the affected wetland s functions and values would not be altered as a majority of the wetland would remain unaffected (20.0 acres); would not substantially reduce the affected wetland s ability to retain floodwaters or storm associated runoff as appropriate drainage mitigation /design would be completed to accommodate runoff from any new impervious surface as described in Section 5.15; adverse affects to the maintenance of natural systems supporting wildlife and fish habitat or economically-important resources would not occur as the majority of the wetland area would remain (20 acres) and no economically-important resources exist; would not promote development of secondary activities or services that would affect the resources or functions of the wetland as the proposed fill of 1.5 acres would not cause changes to the remaining wetlands resources or functions; and coordination with DEQ and DNR, as appropriate, would occur prior to implementation of this alternative to ensure consistency with State wetland strategies Southside Alternative Similar to the Refurbishment Alternative, the Southside Alternative would include the development of additional parking facilities and improved roadways on the north side of the Airport. The Southside Alternative would also result in approximately 1.5 acres of scrub-shrub wetland impacts (see Figure 4-13 for the location of existing wetlands). Before assessing final impacts and proposed mitigation, the USACE would have to issue a Jurisdictional Determination (JD) for the project area. However, the thresholds of significance as described in Section would not be crossed due to the following reasons: the 1.5 acres of impact would not adversely affect the wetland s ability to protect the quality or quantity of municipal water supplies as the wetland area does not play a significant role in the area s water supplies; the affected wetland s functions and values would not be altered as a majority of the wetland would remain unaffected (20.0 acres); would not substantially reduce the affected wetland s ability to retain floodwaters or storm associated runoff as appropriate drainage mitigation /design would be completed to accommodate runoff from any new impervious surface as described in Section 5.15; adverse affects to the maintenance of natural systems supporting wildlife and fish habitat or economically-important resources would not occur as the majority of the wetland area would remain (20 acres) and no economically-important resources exist; would not promote development of secondary activities or services that would affect the resources or functions of the wetland as the proposed fill of 1.5 acres would not cause changes to the remaining wetlands resources or functions; and coordination with DEQ and DNR, as appropriate, would occur prior to implementation of this alternative to ensure consistency with State wetland strategies

239 Westside Alternative Similar to the Refurbishment Alternative, the Westside Alternative would include the development of additional parking facilities on the north side of the Airport. The Westside Alternative also would result in approximately 1.5 acres of scrub-shrub wetland impacts (see Figure 4-13 for the location of existing wetlands). Before assessing final impacts and proposed mitigation, the USACE would have to issue a Jurisdictional Determination (JD) for the project area. However, the thresholds of significance as described in Section would not be crossed due to the following reasons: the 1.5 acres of impact would not adversely affect the wetland s ability to protect the quality or quantity of municipal water supplies as the wetland area does not play a significant role in the area s water supplies; the affected wetland s functions and values would not be altered as a majority of the wetland would remain unaffected (20.0 acres); would not substantially reduce the affected wetland s ability to retain floodwaters or storm associated runoff as appropriate drainage mitigation /design would be completed to accommodate runoff from any new impervious surface as described in Section 5.15; adverse affects to the maintenance of natural systems supporting wildlife and fish habitat or economically-important resources would not occur as the majority of the wetland area would remain (20 acres) and no economically-important resources exist; would not promote development of secondary activities or services that would affect the resources or functions of the wetland as the proposed fill of 1.5 acres would not cause changes to the remaining wetlands resources or functions; and coordination with DEQ and DNR, as appropriate, would occur prior to implementation of this alternative to ensure consistency with State wetland strategies Northside Alternative The Northside Alternative includes the development of a new terminal and ancillary facilities on the north side of the Airport. In addition, new and improved roadways would be constructed in the existing Airport-owned right of way. The Northside Alternative would result in approximately 0.96 acres of scrub-shrub wetland impacts (see Figure 4-13 for the location of existing wetlands). Before assessing final impacts and proposed mitigation, the USACE would have to issue a Jurisdictional Determination (JD) for the project area. However, the thresholds of significance as described in Section would not be crossed due to the following reasons: the less than one acre of impact would not adversely affect the wetland s ability to protect the quality or quantity of municipal water supplies as the wetland area does not play a significant role in the area s water supplies; the affected wetland s functions and values would not be altered as a majority of the wetland would remain unaffected (20.5 acres); would not substantially reduce the affected wetland s ability to retain floodwaters or storm associated runoff as appropriate drainage mitigation /design would be completed to accommodate runoff from any new impervious surface as described in Section 5.15; 5-162

240 adverse affects to the maintenance of natural systems supporting wildlife and fish habitat or economically-important resources would not occur as the majority of the wetland area would remain (20.5 acres) and no economically-important resources exist; would not promote development of secondary activities or services that would affect the resources or functions of the wetland as the proposed fill of less than one acre would not cause changes to the remaining wetlands resources or functions; and coordination with DEQ and DNR, as appropriate, would occur prior to implementation of this alternative to ensure consistency with State wetland strategies Mitigation and Best Management Practices In accordance with stipulations that would be provided in the USACE Section 404 Permit, the Airport would coordinate with the USACE and DEQ for the proposed action to ensure that wetlands are avoided to the maximum extent practicable and, if necessary, provide appropriate compensatory mitigation for any impacts to existing wetlands. The USACE, in consultation with other interested agencies, must concur with the mitigation plan developed. Such compensatory mitigation could include: Permittee-Responsible Mitigation: Restoration, establishment, enhancement or preservation of wetlands undertaken by a permittee in order to compensate for wetland impacts resulting from a specific project. The permittee performs the mitigation after the permit is issued and is ultimately responsible for implementation and success of the mitigation. Permittee-responsible mitigation may occur at the site of the permitted impacts or at an off-site location within the same watershed. However, per a multiagency Memorandum of Agreement, on-airport wetland mitigation could inadvertently result in the creation of a wildlife attractant and is thus generally avoided. Mitigation Banking: A wetlands mitigation bank is a wetland area that has been restored, established, enhanced or preserved, which is then set aside to compensate for future conversions of wetlands for development activities. Permittees, upon approval of regulatory agencies, can purchase credits from a mitigation bank to meet their requirements for compensatory mitigation. The value of these credits is determined by quantifying the wetland functions or acres restored or created. The bank sponsor is ultimately responsible for the success of the project. Mitigation banking is performed "offsite," meaning it is at a location not on or immediately adjacent to the site of impacts, but within the same watershed. Federal regulations establish a flexible preference for using credits from a mitigation bank over the other compensation mechanisms. In-Lieu Fee Mitigation: Mitigation that occurs when a permittee provides funds to an inlieu-fee sponsor (a public agency or non-profit organization). Usually, the sponsor collects funds from multiple permittees in order to pool the financial resources necessary to build and maintain the mitigation site. The in-lieu fee sponsor is responsible for the success of the mitigation. Like banking, in-lieu fee mitigation is also "off-site," but unlike mitigation banking, it typically occurs after the permitted impacts EPA, Wetlands Compensatory Mitigation, available at: Accessed August 15,

241 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 5-164

242 5.17 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS This section identifies impacts associated with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects on and off the Airport relative to the No Action Alternative and the reasonable alternatives Background The selected alternative would occur in an area where other Airport and non-airport development has occurred, where it is occurring, and where it would occur in the reasonably foreseeable future. As a result, this EA must evaluate and disclose the degree to which the selected alternative would contribute to the cumulative effects on the environmental resources those actions have or will affect Regulatory Context The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) at 40 CFR , Cumulative Impact, defines a cumulative impact as: the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time Methodologies CEQ regulations implementing NEPA require the analysis and disclosure of the proposed action s potential cumulative effects (40 CFR (a)(2) and (3)). CEQ and NEPA do so to tell the public if the Proposed Action or reasonable build alternatives, when considered with other projects occurring within the Regional Study Area during specific time frames (i.e., past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions 76 ), would cause a significant environmental effect. Paragraph 405f(c) of FAA Order E, Change 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, and FAA Order B, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions, require analyses of cumulative impacts. To determine cumulative impacts, the incremental effects the selected alternative would cause on a particular environmental resource are considered relative to the effects on the same resource due to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. For this project, spatial and temporal boundaries were delineated to determine the areas and projects within those areas the cumulative analysis would address. The Regional Study Area is the appropriate spatial area for this EA (see Figure 4-2). The temporal scope reflects different time periods relevant to conditions for past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. For this EA: - Past actions include actions that occurred between 2008 and Present actions reflect actions that are occurring in Council on Environmental Quality. 40 U.S.C., Section FAA Order B, paragraph 9.q. defines reasonably foreseeable actions

243 - Reasonably foreseeable future actions are those actions expected to occur between 2014 and 2023 (5 years after the proposed construction is completed). To determine those actions, various sources were examined, including the Airport website for on-airport projects and the official websites for the City of Kenner, Jefferson Parish, and Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development. Scoping meetings also were conducted to determine any other projects that could potentially result in cumulative impacts in the Regional Study Area (see Appendix J) Since some future projects are in various stages of conceptual development and are speculative at this time, it is not possible to quantify the effects associated with them. Projects in early planning phases do not provide enough data to ensure reasonable analyses and are subject to change. As a result, this EA does not provide a detailed evaluation of the potential environmental impacts associated with those future projects. Projects described below only include those which had or have the potential to affect the environmental resource categories analyzed in this EA (e.g., the Airport GIS project or interior terminal improvements are not included in this cumulative impacts analysis). Past Actions The following sections describe past action(s) that have occurred on- and off-airport property between 2008 and On-airport actions: The NOAB reported the following past actions: 77 Roof replacement: The roofs of Concourses A, B, C, and D, the main terminal, and west terminal were replaced. Hurricane repairs: Hurricane Katrina repairs were made to the terminal, concourses, transportation and parking facilities, roofs, exteriors, interiors, Building 258 (airline cargo building), and Building 300 (perishable goods center). Exterior terminal improvements: Phase 1 consisted of improvements to the loop road. Phase 2 consisted of modernizing the exterior features of the terminal building (new widows and entrances, replacement of the façade, and expansion of inner and outer roadway curbs). Phase 4 interior terminal improvements: This project will include a number of aesthetic upgrades including improvements to walls, ceilings, additional lighting, column covers, speakers, carpet replacement, FFE (fixtures, furnishings, and equipment), and replacing escalators and trash receptacles. Expansion of Concourse D: Six gates were added to Concourse D. New Airfield Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) facility: The new ARFF facility was constructed west of the existing facility and included demolishing the DHL cargo hangar and apron. Improvements to the North Perimeter Road: The North Perimeter Road was rehabilitated and realigned. The project also included re-contouring nearby ditches. New loading bridges: Seventeen aircraft loading bridges were replaced. Construction of a Consolidated Rent-A-Car (CONRAC) garage: The CONRAC garage includes a customer service building, a ready-return parking garage, new utility building 77, Capital Improvement Projects, available at: Accessed February

244 and associated service areas for the rental car companies to maintain their vehicles. The facility also includes concessions and is connected to the Terminal via covered walkways. New Airfield Lighting Vault: The new Airfield Lighting Vault serves the north side of the airfield, east of the existing General Aviation apron area. Levee improvements: The United States Army Corps of Engineers constructed a series of levee sections on the west end of the airfield. The work included re-aligning the West Return Flood Wall, constructing the Levee around the west end of Runway 10/28, and raising the Canadian National Railroad Gate. Rehabilitation of the terminal apron: Phase 2 of the Terminal Apron Rehabilitation Project included replacing portions of the air carrier apron surrounding Concourse "B, specifically the pavement between Concourses "B and "C, including the aircraft gates. Phase 4 interior terminal improvements: This project included a number of aesthetic upgrades including improvements to walls, ceilings, additional lighting, column covers, speakers, carpet replacement, FFE (fixtures, furnishings, and equipment), and replacing escalators and trash receptacles. Runway 6-24 Conversion Project: This project converted existing Runway 6-24 to Taxiway D. This included pavement rehabilitation, new lighting, and pavement markings. Off-Airport Projects: According to the City of Kenner, the following projects have been completed: Tree-planting: Trees were planted along portions of Loyola Drive as a part of a tree planting project. 78 Hotel conversion: The former Holiday Inn at the intersection of Veterans and Williams Boulevard was upgraded to a Crowne-Plaza Hotel. 79 Asphalt overlays: Asphalt overlays were completed at the intersection of Connecticut Avenue and 22nd Street. 80 Concrete panel replacement: Panels along the 3300 block of Florida Avenue were replaced. 81 Sidewalk resurfacing: The Veterans Park sidewalk was resurfaced. 82 Roadway improvements: Improvements were made to the Loyola Avenue / Interstate 10 intersection. 83 Current Actions On-Airport Projects: There are two projects currently underway at the Airport. If approved, the Proposed Action would occur at the same time as the other two projects and this EA includes these two projects in the cumulative impact analysis. Airport Cargo Road Rehabilitation: This project includes rehabilitation and enhancements to the roadway system in the cargo/general aviation area of the airport to The City of Kenner. The New Kenner Popular Report, , available at: Accessed February Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. The City of Kenner, Planning Department, available at: Accessed February The City of Kenner, State of the City 2011, available at: Final.pdf. Accessed February

245 improve roadway efficiency and air cargo operations (see Figure 5-15). 84 This project is currently under construction. Figure 5-15 AIRPORT CARGO ROAD REHABILITATION Source: TMG Consulting, 2013 Airfield Electrical Rehabilitation: This project will rehabilitate and improve the reliability of the airfield electrical system. The existing electrical ductbanks would be demolished and new electrical ductbanks with associated circuit cable would be installed. The runway/taxiway edge lights, centerline lights, and runway touchdown zone lights would be replaced. This project would also include the replacement and/or upgrade of airfield signage, replace and/or reconfiguration of windcones, electrical vault improvements, new constant current regulators, and improvements to the airfield lighting control and monitoring system. Off-Airport Projects: No off-airport projects have been identified within the City of Kenner. Long-Term Future Actions As part of long-term planning efforts and visioning for the Airport, a variety of other improvements have been identified that could be implemented in the future. These 84, Capital Improvement Projects, available at: Accessed July

246 improvements include the potential for an intermodal transportation facility on the south side of the Airport, the provision of light rail transit to the Airport from downtown New Orleans, and provision of a flyover from Interstate 10 as an access to the north side of the Airport. The Airport Sponsor s proposed action would not preclude any of these long-term projects from being implemented. In addition, the Airport Sponsor s proposed action would be consistent with the City of Kenner s long-range development plans along Veterans Memorial Boulevard. However, these projects are speculative in that no plans for any of them exist. As a result, the implementation of any of these projects is not reasonably foreseeable and is beyond the planning horizon for this Terminal Replacement Project. If any of these projects do come to fruition, separate environmental analyses would be required Thresholds of Significance This section describes the thresholds of significance as defined in FAA Orders E, Change 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures. The significance thresholds used in the cumulative analysis vary with the resources affected because FAA does not have significance thresholds for cumulative impacts. As a result, this EA s cumulative analysis uses the thresholds of significance in FAA Order E, Change 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, Appendix A that FAA has developed for each individual impact category Environmental Consequences The only projects listed in Section that could cause potential cumulative impacts with the Proposed Action would be those listed in that Section under Reasonably Foreseeable, On- Airport Projects (RFAP). This EA does not include other projects noted in Section because: they caused past minor environmental effects that were properly mitigated and no longer affect the same resources the Proposed Action would affect; they involved external repairs or internal modifications to buildings that did not affect the resources the Proposed Action would affect; they did not or would not occur in the Regional Study Area, so they did not/would not affect the same resources the Proposed Action would affect; or their timing is unknown, so they are not reasonably foreseeable. The following sections provide a qualitative assessment of the cumulative impacts to the Airport Cargo Road project, under the RFAP, that the Proposed Action could potentially affect Air Quality The rehabilitation of Airport Cargo Roads and the airfield electrical system would result in shortterm emissions from construction equipment. These projects are expected to have a construction period of less than six months. Thus, the total emissions from construction would be minimal and would not, cumulatively, exceed any Federal emissions thresholds. Adding the de minimis emissions associated with the reasonable alternatives to the emissions related to the rehabilitation of the Airport Cargo Roads and the airfield electrical system projects would not cause cumulative, significant air quality effects

247 Further, the cumulative impact of the reasonable alternatives on the global climate when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions is not currently scientifically predictable. Aviation has been calculated to contribute approximately three percent of global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions; this contribution may grow to five percent by Actions are underway within the U.S. and by other nations to reduce aviation's contribution through such measures as new aircraft technologies to reduce emissions and improve fuel efficiency, renewable alternative fuels with lower carbon footprints, more efficient air traffic management, market-based measures and environmental regulations including an aircraft CO2 standard. The U.S. has ambitious goals to achieve carbon-neutral growth for aviation by 2020 compared to a 2005 baseline, and to gain absolute reductions in GHG emissions by At present there are no calculations of the extent to which measures individually or cumulatively may affect aviation's CO2 emissions. Moreover, there are large uncertainties regarding aviation's impact on climate. The FAA, with support from the U.S. Global Change Research Program and its participating federal agencies (e.g., NASA, NOAA, EPA, and DOE), has developed the Aviation Climate Change Research Initiative (ACCRI) in an effort to advance scientific understanding of regional and global climate impacts of aircraft emissions, with quantified uncertainties for current and projected aviation scenarios under changing atmospheric conditions Coastal Resources The rehabilitation of Airport Cargo Roads and the airfield electrical system would occur on previously disturbed land within the Regional Study Area. Thus, the proposed action would not have an effect on coastal resources and cumulative impacts associated with coastal resources would occur Compatible Land Use The rehabilitation of Airport Cargo Roads and the airfield electrical system would occur within the Airport boundary of the Regional Study Area. Thus, the proposed action would be compatible with operations at the Airport and no land use compatibility impacts would occur Construction Impacts The rehabilitation of Airport Cargo Roads and the airfield electrical system are under construction and would be completed 2014, which would be prior to implementation of any of the reasonable alternatives. Thus, no cumulative construction-related impacts would occur Department of Transportation Section 4(f) The rehabilitation of Airport Cargo Roads and the airfield electrical system would occur within the Airport boundary of the Regional Study Area where no Department of Transportation Section 4(f) properties exist. Thus, the proposed action would not have an effect on Section 4(f) properties, and cumulative impacts associated with Section 4(f) properties would not occur Fish, Wildlife, and Plants The location of the rehabilitation of the Airport Cargo Roads and the airfield electrical system are not within the habitat of any Federally-listed or State-listed species as discussed as in Section 5.6. The reasonable alternatives would not affect those protected resources because none occur within the Regional Study Area. 85 Nathan Brown, et. al. The U.S. Strategy for Tackling Aviation Climate Impacts, (2010). 27th International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences 5-170

248 The reasonable alternatives would disturb less sensitive, commonly occurring biotic resources occupying grassy Airport areas. In addition, the reasonable alternatives would disturb a maximum of 1.5 acres of wetland habitats. Biota occupying the wetland could move to wetland areas immediately west of the Airport. As a result, the reasonable alternatives would not cause significant, cumulative impacts to fish, wildlife and plants. Therefore, no cumulative impacts to such species would occur Floodplains The rehabilitation of Airport Cargo Roads and the airfield electrical system would not result in any measurable increase in impervious surfaces and thus no change in runoff patterns would occur. The reasonable alternatives would affect a maximum of 88.1 acres of floodplain. However, measures to mitigate any adverse floodplain effects would be implemented (see Section 5.7). As a result, the reasonable alternatives would not cause significant, cumulative floodplain effects Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste The rehabilitation of the Airport Cargo Roads and the airfield electrical system would result in a short-term, temporary increase in the use of asphalt and an increase in the use of gasoline and diesel fuels by construction equipment. However, the reasonable alternatives would not result in any significant impacts related to hazardous materials, pollution prevention, or solid waste. As a result, the reasonable alternatives would not cause significant, cumulative hazardous materials impacts Historical, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources The rehabilitation of Airport Cargo Roads and the airfield electrical system would not affect known archaeological resources because no historical, architectural, archaeological, or cultural resources are known to exist within the Regional Study Area (see Section 5.9). As a result, the reasonable alternatives would not cause any cumulative impacts to cultural resources Light Emissions and Visual Impacts No additional lighting or visual aesthetic features would be added or modified as result of the rehabilitation of the Airport Cargo Roads. The rehabilitation of the airfield electrical system would result in the replacement of airfield lights but would not result in additional lights that would be visible to off-airport land uses. Thus, there would be no significant impacts associated with light emissions and visual impacts for the proposed action. The reasonable alternatives include measures to reduce project-related light emissions on light-sensitive land uses. The aesthetic designs and landscaping associated with the Northside Alternative would reduce visual effects of the noise barrier along the entrance road (see Section 5.10). Thus, the reasonable alternatives would not cause significant, cumulative light or visual effects Natural Resources and Energy Supply The rehabilitation of the Airport Cargo Roads and the airfield electrical system would use natural resource and energy supplies during their construction and maintenance. The reasonable alternatives would also use those resources and energy for its operation. However, adequate supplies exist to support the activities noted above (see Section 5.11). As a result, the reasonable alternatives would not result in any cumulative, significant effects on natural resources or energy supplies

249 Noise The rehabilitation of the Airport Cargo Roads and the airfield electrical system would have no permanent effect on noise in the Regional Study Area since these proposed projects would not change the existing operation of vehicular or aircraft traffic. The construction-related noise would not occur in conjunction with any construction-related noise associated with any of the reasonable alternatives because the rehabilitation work for both the Airport Cargo Roads and the airfield electrical system would end before the start of construction associated with any of the reasonable alternatives. As a result, there would be no cumulative noise impacts. The Northside Alternative would increase vehicular traffic noise along entrance road (see Section 5.12). However, the proposed noise barrier along the entrance road for the Northside Alternative would prevent permanent increases in noise exposure to the adjacent residential neighborhood north of the Airport. Therefore, no cumulative operational-related noise would occur Secondary Impacts Although the rehabilitation of Airport Cargo Roads and the airfield electrical system would result in a temporary increase in employment and a temporary increase in construction-related traffic, none of these impacts would be permanent. Since the rehabilitation of Airport Cargo Roads and the airfield electrical system would occur prior to the start of any of the reasonable alternatives, no cumulative secondary impacts would occur Socioeconomic Impacts, Environmental Justice, and Children s Health and Safety Risks The rehabilitation of Airport Cargo Roads and the airfield electrical system would not result in any relocation of existing residences or business since it would occur within the Airport boundary of the Regional Study Area. In addition, no disproportionate impacts to low-income or minority communities would result from any of the reasonable alternatives. Thus, no cumulative socioeconomic impacts would occur Water Quality The rehabilitation of the Airport Cargo Roads and the airfield electrical system would not result in any measurable increase in impervious surfaces and thus no change in runoff patterns would occur. Therefore, no cumulative impacts associated with water quality would occur Wetlands The locations of the Airport Cargo Roads and the airfield electrical system are not within any known wetlands (see Section 4.15 for the location of wetlands with the Regional Study Area. Therefore, no cumulative impacts to wetlands would occur

250 6 CHAPTER 6 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 6.1 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT As required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Order E, Change 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures and FAA s Community Involvement Policy Statement, 1 a public involvement process was conducted. The process provided meaningful public input regarding the Proposed Action and reasonable alternatives described and analyzed in this Environmental Assessment (EA). The public involvement process was initiated to: provide information about the project s purpose and need and the alternatives the EA discusses; obtain feedback about the above information from the public and agencies interested in and affected by the proposed improvement (i.e., interested parties); inform those interested parties that the EA will provide a full and fair discussion of project-related environmental effects; provide timely public notices to the interested parties so they may submit comments and participate in public open meetings concerning the proposed improvements; and record comments received from interested parties. 6.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND AGENCY COORDINATION APPROACH AND PROCESS Pertinent Federal statutes, regulations, executive orders, and guidance were considered when conducting the public involvement process. The process was designed to meet the public involvement process outlined above in Section 6.1. By receiving and responding to comments from interested parties, the Airport Sponsor and FAA were able to evaluate public and agency concerns. Then, the FAA, in consultation with the Sponsor, was able to determine whether the EA should provide additional environmental analyses or mitigation measures. Table 6-1 summarizes the public scoping process that occurred for this EA. Table 6-1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS HELD JUNE 18 AND 19, 2013 Scoping Meeting Location Sign In Attendance Written Comments Neighborhood Business Doubletree Hotel 61 9 Owners Neighborhood Residents Doubletree Hotel 33 6 Agency NOAB Board Room 13 0 General Public NOAB Board Room 8 0 Source: Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Scoping Report, Federal Aviation Administration, Community Involvement Policy Statement, April 17, Chapter 6: Consultation and Coordination December

251 Chapter 6 Consultation and Coordination 6.3 EARLY PUBLIC AND AGENCY NOTIFICATION AND COORDINATION Early notification letters regarding the EA were mailed out to agencies in December 2012 to seek initial coordination concerning potential adverse environmental effects associated with the Proposed Action and alternatives. Notification of the FAA s EA scoping process followed FAA guidance on that process. This correspondence occurred in June A variety of methods were used to inform interested parties about the EA scoping process. Those methods included: Neighborhood Business Owner Mailers: The mailers were distributed to business owners in the neighborhood in the vicinity of the Airport. Appendix J provides a copy of the mailer and a map showing the area where the mailer was sent. Neighborhood Residents Mailers: A mailer was distributed to residents in the neighborhood in the vicinity of the Airport. Appendix J provides a copy of the mailer and a map showing the area where the mailer was sent. Letters from NOAB to Agencies: A letter was sent to each agency that may have an interest in the long-term airport development at the Airport. Appendix J provides a copy of the letter and a list of the agencies receiving the letter. A Newspaper Advertisement: A newspaper advertisement for the general public scoping meeting was published in the Times Picayune on Sunday, 26 May 2013 and on Friday, 14 June Appendix J presents copy of the newspaper display advertisement. NOAB Website: Information regarding the general public scoping meeting was posted to the NOAB website. This information on the website is the same as the newspaper display advertisement described above. 6.4 DRAFT EA NOTIFICATION AND DISTRIBUTION The public comment process is central to the environmental review process. As a result, the Airport Sponsor made the Draft EA available to the public on November 8, 2013 via hard copy and the Airport s website (see Figure 6-1 for the advertisements published). To ensure the public and agencies are aware of the Draft EA, the Sponsor issued a Notice of Availability in the Times Picayune and on the Airport website. The Notice told interested parties where they could access a hard copy of the Draft EA. The website included a copy of the Notice of Availability, and directions for downloading the Draft EA. The Notice also informed interested parties that they have 30 days from the date of the Notice to submit written comments on the Draft EA via letter or to the Sponsor. One comment was received during the comment period and is included in Appendix M. An informational meeting on the Draft EA was held on November 21, 2013 from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Central Standard Time, in the NOAB Board Room at the Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport. A Public Hearing on the Draft EA was held on December 9, 2013 from 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Central Standard Time, in the NOAB Board Room at the Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport. One person provided comments during the public hearing. These comments are included in Appendix M. Chapter 6: Consultation and Coordination December

252 Chapter 6 Consultation and Coordination Figure 6-1 THE TIMES PICAYUNE ADVERTISEMENT Chapter 6: Consultation and Coordination December