SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE TERMINAL REPLACEMENT PROJECT AT THE LOUIS ARMSTRONG NEW ORLEANS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

Transcription

1

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE TERMINAL REPLACEMENT PROJECT AT THE LOUIS ARMSTRONG NEW ORLEANS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT Chapter Page 1. INTRODUCTION Overview of the Airport Document Organization MODIFIED ACTION Introduction Revisions to the Approved Action Summary of the Modified Action ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Air Quality Coastal Resources Compatible Land Use Construction Impacts Floodplains Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste Light Emissions and Visual Impacts Natural Resources, Energy Supply, and Sustainable Design Noise Socioeconomic Impacts, Environmental Justice, and Children s Health and Safety Risks Water Quality Cumulative Impacts CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION Public and Agency Involvement Public Involvement and Agency Coordination Approach and Process Early Agency Notification and Coordination Public Notification GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS Abbreviations Terms 5-4 Supplemental EA Chapter 2: Proposed Action August 2015 i

3 6. REFERENCES LIST OF PREPARERS Lead Agency Principal Reviewers Principal Preparers 7-1 APPENDICES A. Coordination with the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources Office of Coastal Management B. Coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Federal Emergency Management Agency C. Agency Notification Letters and Responses D. Public Outreach LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1-1 Airport Location 1-5 Figure 1-2 Airport Layout Plan 1-7 Figure 2-1 Approved Action Analyzed in 2013 Environmental Assessment 2-3 Figure 2-2 Modified Action 2-5 Figure 2-3 Western Portion of the Modified Action 2-7 Figure 2-4 Eastern Portion of the Modified Action 2-9 Figure 3-1 Louisiana Coastal Zone 3-14 Figure 3-2 Jefferson Parish Management Units 3-15 Figure 3-3 Land Uses within the Airport Study Area 3-20 Figure 3-4 Floodplain Map in Airport Study Area 3-28 Figure 3-5 Floodplain Impacts for Modified Action 3-29 Figure 3-6 Visible Hotel Height from Kenner Neighborhood 3-41 Figure 3-7 Current Hydrologic Basin Delineation at the Airport 3-68 Figure 3-8 Airport Cargo Road Rehabilitation 3-75 LIST OF TABLES Table EA Construction Emissions Summary for the Approved Action 3-3 Table EA Surface Traffic Activity in Annual Average Vehicle Miles Traveled (AAVMT) 3-4 Table 3-3 Operational Emissions Summary 3-5 Table 3-4 Air Quality Monitoring Data in the Airport Study Area 3-7 Table 3-5 Maximum Natural Gas Consumption Estimates 3-8 Supplemental EA Chapter 2: Proposed Action August 2015 ii

4 Table 3-6 Peak Emissions Estimates Associated with the Central Utility Plant 3-9 Table 3-7 Modified Action Construction Emissions of Criteria Pollutants 3-10 Table 3-8 Annual Criteria Pollutant Emissions During Each Construction Year 3-10 Table 3-9 Impervious Surface Floodplain Impacts 3-30 Table 3-10 Visibility of Proposed Hotel from Kenner Neighborhood 3-42 Table 3-11 Hotel Electricity Usage 3-48 Table 3-12 Hotel Water Use Factors 3-49 Table 3-13 Noise Abatement Criteria 3-55 Table 3-14 Construction Equipment Nose Levels 3-57 Table 3-15 Population and Housing Data 3-61 Table 3-16 Income, Poverty, Employment, and Ethnicity Data 3-62 Supplemental EA Chapter 2: Proposed Action August 2015 iii

5 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Supplemental EA Chapter 2: Proposed Action August 2015 iv

6 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The City of New Orleans (Sponsor) by and through the New Orleans Aviation Board (NOAB) prepared an Environmental Assessment (2013 EA) for the implementation of the Long-Term Airport Development at the (MSY). The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) accepted that 2013 EA as a Federal document and based its December 2013 Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and Record of Decision (ROD) 1 for the Long-Term Airport Development on that EA. The 2013 EA identified the Northside Alternative as the Proposed Action and FAA s Preferred Alternative. Since the approval of the FONSI and ROD, the Sponsor has made some planning and design changes that will modify the Approved Action. As a result, and in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Sponsor has prepared this Supplemental EA to discuss those changes and their environmental effects. This Supplemental EA has been prepared to comply with the requirements in FAA Order B, 2 FAA Order E, Change 1, 3 4 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 Sponsor, the City of New Orleans (City). The nine-member NOAB, which was created in 1943, represents the City in all aviation matters in consultation with state, national, and international government agencies. The NOAB 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 EA: available at ea_vol_1_reduced.pdf; 2013 EA Appendices: available at /long_term_airport_development/final_ea_vol_2_appendices_reduced.pdf; and ROD: available at Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport, 3 rd Floor Administrative Office, 500 Airline Drive, Kenner, Louisiana 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, On July 16, 2015, FAA Order F became effective, updating and replacing Order E. Because the 2013 EA was completed, and this Supplemental EA was substantially drafted while Order E was in effect, it would not be practicable to fully revise the document to follow the procedural structure of Order F. See Order F para Supplemental EA Chapter 1: Introduction August

7 area includes all Airport facilities as well as parcels that the NOAB 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. 5 This means that the Airport serves between 0.25 and 1 percent of all annual passengers boarding aircraft in the United States. The Airport s existing terminal structure, located on the south side of the Airport, 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). 1.2 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION This Supplemental EA is organized into the following chapters: Chapter 1: Introduction This chapter provides an overview of the Airport and how the Supplemental EA is presented. Chapter 2: Modified Action This chapter provides an overview of the Purpose and Need for the Modified Action and a brief description of the revisions to the Approved Action. Chapter 3: Environmental Consequences, Mitigation and Best Management Practices This chapter describes the affected environment and potential environmental effects that the revisions to the Approved Action would have on the affected environment. It also presents measures best management practices (BMPs) to mitigate the identified environmental effects. Pursuant to regulations at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Sections and (a)(2), as well as Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidance documents 6, this chapter also discusses cumulative impacts. That discussion focuses on the effects the Modified 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 Supplemental EA contains figures and tables to clarify the analyses presented in this chapter. 5 Federal Aviation Administration, National Plan of Integrated Airports System. Available at: Accessed: September Council on Environmental Quality, Considering Cumulative Effects, January 1997, and Guidance on the Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis, June 24, Supplemental EA Chapter 1: Introduction August

8 Chapter 4: Public Outreach This chapter discusses the coordination and public involvement associated with the Supplemental EA process. The chapter also presents a list of Federal, State, and local agencies and other interested parties that have been involved in Supplemental EA coordination efforts. Chapter 5: Glossary and Acronyms This chapter contains terms and acronyms used in this Supplemental EA. Chapter 6: References This chapter contains a list of references used to develop this Supplemental EA. Chapter 7: List of Preparers This chapter contains a list of names and the qualifications of individuals who prepared, contributed to, and reviewed this Supplemental EA. Appendices: The appendices present the relevant material, analyses, or technical reports that were used to prepare this Supplemental EA. Supplemental EA Chapter 1: Introduction August

9 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Supplemental EA Chapter 1: Introduction August

10 Figure 1-1 AIRPORT LOCATION Source: RS&H, 2013 Supplemental EA Chapter 1: Introduction August

11 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Supplemental EA Chapter 1: Introduction August

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

13 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Supplemental EA Chapter 1: Introduction August

14 CHAPTER 2 MODIFIED ACTION 2.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter summarizes the revisions to the Approved Action that the New Orleans Aviation Board (NOAB) has made since the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued its Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and Record of Decision (ROD) for that Action on 30 December The Purpose and Need for this proposed environmental review action, as stated in the 2013 Environmental Assessment (2013 EA), has not changed. The three primary purposes of the Approved Action remained as originally identified in the 2013 EA as 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 Since the issuance of the original 2013 FONSI and ROD, the NOAB has continued the Design Development process associated with the Approved Action. This process has identified several revisions to the Approved Action that were not initially considered and analyzed as part of the Approved Action. This chapter identifies each revision and provides a summary of overall changes. To assist in identifying the revisions to the Approved Action, the following figures are provided: Figure 2-1 presents the Approved Action that was included as Figure 3-4 in the 2013 EA; Figure 2-2 presents the revised Approved Action, now called the Modified Action; Figure 2-3 presents a detailed depiction of the western portion of the Modified Action; and Figure 2-4 presents a detailed depiction of the eastern portion of the Modified Action. 2.2 REVISIONS TO THE APPROVED ACTION Relocation of Terminal Building and Concourses The proposed terminal building and concourses would be relocated approximately 225 feet to the south as compared to the location presented as part of the Approved Action (see Figure 2-1). No change in the number of aircraft gates (30) identified as part of the Approved Action would occur. The revised location of the terminal building and concourses is presented as project component A on Figures 2-2, and 2-3, and 2-4. Supplemental EA Chapter 2: Modified Action August

15 2.2.2 Relocation and Size Reduction of the Parking Garage The Approved Action included the development of a 4,000-space parking garage to the west of the proposed terminal building and concourses (see Figure 2-1). Additional design has resulted in relocating the parking garage to the north of the proposed terminal and concourses (see project component B in Figures 2-2, 2-3, and 2-4). In addition, the size of the parking garage has been considerably reduced from 4,000 spaces to 2,089 spaces and the footprint of the parking garage has been reduced from about 480,000 square feet to about 396,000 square feet. However, with the provision of surface parking lots (see Section 2.2.9), the overall number of public parking spaces would decrease by 416 (about 9 percent less than the Approved Action reported). The parking garage would be up to five stories tall and would be adjacent to the proposed hotel (see Section 2.2.5). The relocation of the parking garage would allow for direct access from the parking garage to the north end of the terminal building, shortening the length of the bridge between the parking garage and the terminal Realignment of Access Roadway and Circulation System The Approved Action included the development of roadways and a circulation system to provide vehicular access to the proposed terminal building and parking facilities (see Figure 2-1). In an effort to minimize any impacts to known wetlands, simplify the layout, and maximize the potential for surface parking facilities (see Section 2.2.9), the roadway and circulation system have been modified. Although all access points to the proposed terminal complex have not changed, the roadways have been designed to create a more efficient circulation system that separates departure and arrival traffic and provides access for all vehicle types to the Airport (see project component C in Figures 2-2, 2-3, and 2-4) Relocation and Increase in Size of Taxi Waiting Parking Lot The Approved Action included the development of a taxi waiting area that was north of the roadway system (see Figure 2-1). This taxi waiting area was designed to accommodate 240 vehicles. As a result of additional design, the taxi waiting parking lot has been expanded from 70,000 square feet to 90,000 square feet and would accommodate up to 354 vehicles. In addition, the location of the taxi waiting parking lot has been moved to reduce conflicts between incoming/outgoing taxi lot traffic and traffic associated with the proposed terminal (see project component D in Figures 2-2 and 2-3) Addition of Hotel The revision to the Approved Action now includes the addition of a hotel to the north of the proposed terminal building and adjacent to the proposed parking garage (see project component E on Figures 2-2, 2-3, and 2-4). Although the hotel has not been designed at this Supplemental EA - Chapter 2: Modified Action August

16 Figure 2-1 APPROVED ACTION ANALYZED IN THE 2013 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Source: Atkins, 2013 Supplemental EA Chapter 2: Modified Action August

17 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Supplemental EA Chapter 2: Modified Action August

18 Figure 2-2 MODIFIED ACTION Source: Atkins, 2015 Supplemental EA Chapter 2: Revisions to Modified Action June

19 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Supplemental EA Chapter 2: Modified Action August

20 Figure 2-3 WESTERN PORTION OF THE MODIFIED ACTION Source: Atkins, 2015 Supplemental EA Chapter 2: Revisions to Modified Action June

21 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Supplemental EA Chapter 2: Modified Action August

22 Figure 2-4 EASTERN PORTION OF THE MODIFIED ACTION Source: Atkins, 2015 Supplemental EA Chapter 2: Revisions to Modified Action June

23 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Supplemental EA Chapter 2: Modified Action August

24 time, the hotel could have approximately 150 rooms and be up to eight stories tall. The overall height restriction for the property would be 145 feet. The hotel may provide amenities similar to other hotels located adjacent to airport terminals, such as small conference rooms, spa and gym, ancillary retail, and a restaurant and bar. The hotel may be required to provide parking, which would be provided either in the parking garage (see Section 2.2.2) or by a valet parking option that uses the existing long-term parking garage on the south side of the Airport Removal of Existing Concourses B and C and Part of Existing East Terminal The Approved Action included the demolition and removal of existing Concourse A. The revised Proposed Action also includes the demolition and removal of existing Concourses B and C as well as the portion of the existing east terminal building (the portion that is east of the Parabola in front of Concourse C) (see project component F on Figure 2-2). Approximately 700,000 square feet of existing concourses and terminal building would be demolished and removed. The contractor will be responsible for disposing of the material from the demolition activity Reduction in Number of Remain Overnight (RON) Parking Spaces The Approved Action included 13 remain overnight (RON) aircraft parking spaces (see Figure 2-1). The Modified Action reduces the number of RON spaces to 10 (see project component G on Figure 2-2). The reduction in the number of RON spaces reduces the amount of pavement (i.e., impervious surfaces) by approximately 60,000 square feet and also reduces the cost of the Modified Action Relocation of Navigation Aids (NAVAIDs) The existing airport surveillance radar (ASR) facility, Remote Transmit Received (RTR), and Low Level Windshear Alert System (LLWAS) are on the north side of the Airport in the general location of the proposed terminal development. As such, relocation of these NAVAIDs is needed. The Approved Action identified potential sites for relocating the ASR, the RTR, and the LLWAS. Since the issuance of the FONSI, additional design has determined the optimal locations for relocating these NAVAIDs. The ASR-9 would be relocated to the south side of the Airport Fire Department south of the intersection of Taxiways C and E (see project component H1 on Figure 2-2). The RTRs would be relocated on two sites on NOAB property east of the existing Airport Access Road (see project component H2 on Figure 2-2). The LLWAS would be relocated to the east of the proposed taxi waiting parking lot (see project component H3 on Figures 2-2 and 2-3). The relocation of these NAVAIDs would enable these facilities to continue to provide aircraft with the necessary assistance to safely and efficiently operate at the Airport. Supplemental EA Chapter 2: Modified Action August

25 2.2.9 Addition of Two Public Surface Parking Lots The Modified Action includes the addition of two public surface parking lots (see project component I on Figure 2-2). The west lot, which would be west of the proposed terminal building, would occupy about 7.55 acres and provide 695 parking spaces. Access to the west lot would be via the departure roadway loop (see project component IW on Figure 2-3). The east lot, which would be east of the proposed terminal building, would occupy about 7.35 acres and provide 606 parking spaces. Access to the east lot would be from the arrival roadway loop and the entrance from Bainbridge Avenue (see project component IE on Figure 2-4). All additional stormwater runoff would be mitigated through appropriate engineers methodology and remediation Addition of Manager s Parking Lot The Modified Action includes the addition of a new Manager s parking lot (see project component J on Figures 2-2 and 2-4). This parking lot, which would be east of the proposed terminal building and south of the east surface parking lot, would occupy about 0.5 acre and provide 50 parking spaces for airline station managers and other select terminal tenants. Access to the Manager s parking lot would be from the arrival roadway loop Addition of Cell Phone Parking Lot The Modified Action includes the addition of a new cell phone parking lot (see project component K on Figures 2-2 and 2-4). This parking lot, which would be east of the Manager s parking lot and southeast of the east surface parking lot, would occupy about 0.5 acre and provide 30 parking spaces for persons waiting to pick up arriving passengers. Access to the cell phone parking lot would be from the arrival roadway loop Relocation of Storm Water Pump Station The Approved Action included the construction of a new pump station for drainage purposes northeast of the intersection of Taxiways A and G. The Modified Action would relocate the pump station approximately 1,000 feet to the west to be closer to the Parish Line Canal (see project component L on Figure 2-2). The functionality of the pump station would not change and the proposed system for drainage at the Airport would not change. The relocation of the pump station would more efficiently drain the Airport during precipitation events Reduction in Length of Taxiway D to be Removed The Approved Action included the removal of approximately 2,615 linear feet of Taxiway D between Taxiways G and S (see Figure 2-1). The Modified Action would remove 2,195 linear feet of Taxiway D, while retaining approximately 420 linear feet of the taxiway between the proposed commercial aircraft apron east of the new terminal s east concourse and Taxiway S (see project component M on Figures 2-2 and 2-4). The retained portion of Taxiway D would be milled and Supplemental EA Chapter 2: Modified Action August

26 overlaid. The improved Taxiway would allow aircraft using the proposed east concourse s apron to directly enter or exit Taxiway S Realignment of Taxiway G The Approved Action included the realignment of Taxiway G south of the proposed terminal and concourses (see Figure 2-1). The Modified Action realigns Taxiway G about 320 feet to the north (see project component N on Figure 2-2) of the earlier approved location. This realignment would improve circulation between the proposed commercial aircraft apron for the east and west concourses of the new terminal and Taxiway S Relocation of Transit Center The Approved Action included a one-acre transit center to the northeast of the terminal building (see Figure 2-1). The Modified Action relocates the transit center west of the new terminal building and beneath the elevated roadway and the departures curb (see project component O on Figures 2-2 and 2-3). This location will provide more direct access to the terminal building for airport staff and passengers using the transit center Addition of Central Utility Plant The Modified Action includes the addition of a Central Utility Plant (see project component P on Figures 2-2 and 2-4). The Central Utility Plant would occupy a 23,100-square-foot building northeast of the proposed east public surface parking lot. The Central Utility Plant would provide utility connections to operate the proposed facilities on the north side of the Airport Relocation of Airfield Lighting Vault (ALV) The Modified Action includes the relocation of a new ALV (see project component Q on Figures 2-2 and 2-4) and the demolition of the existing ALV. The airfield lighting vault would occupy a 4,700- square-foot building east of Bainbridge Avenue and north of the new Central Utility Plant. Water service to the ALV would be provided by the existing airport water line. Sewer service would be connected to the proposed North Terminal s sewer pump station. Electric service would be provided under Bainbridge Avenue at Dublin Street and numerous airfield electrical and communications connections would come into the ALV from the south and east Relocation of Blue Water Disposal Station The Modified Action includes the relocation of the blue water disposal station (see project component R on Figures 2-2 and 2-4). The blue water station, which would be north of the proposed Central Utility Plant and west of the intersection of Taxiways S and U, would provide a location where aircraft lavatory waste could be processed for appropriate disposal. Supplemental EA Chapter 2: Modified Action August

27 Reduction in Length of Improvements for Bainbridge Avenue The Approved Action included improvements to Bainbridge Avenue to expand the roadway from two to four lanes. These previous improvements were to provide access for the Airport s longterm and employee parking lot shuttles and commercial vehicles (see Figure 2-1). The Modified Action would improve Bainbridge Avenue to the Airport s property line and match existing conditions with two lanes of travel (see project components on Figures 2-2 and 2-4). Access would be limited to Airport-authorized vehicles, such as employee and parking shuttles, and service and maintenance vehicles Relocation of Glycol Tank and Addition of Access Road The Modified Action includes the relocation of two glycol tanks and deicing pads and the addition of an access road (see project component T on Figure 2-2). This facility, which would be associated with deicing aircraft during precipitation events involving snow or ice, is located to the east of the RON parking spaces on the east side of the proposed terminal and its concourses Addition of Hydrant Fueling System The Modified Action includes the addition of a hydrant fueling system for aircraft. The hydrant fueling system would run under the existing airfield and would provide fueling for each of the aircraft gates at the proposed terminal (see project component U on Figure 2-2). The fuel would be piped from the existing fuel storage facility on the south side of the Airport. The final alignment of the pipe would occur during the final design of the Proposed Action. 2.3 SUMMARY OF THE MODIFIED ACTION Added project components: The proposed revisions to the Approved Action would add the following project components. A 150-room, 8-story hotel would be built adjacent to the relocated parking garage discussed below. Two public surface parking lots affecting a total of acres and providing 1,301 parking spaces. A 0.5-acre parking lot for airline station managers and other select terminal tenants providing 50 parking spaces. A 0.5-acre cell phone parking lot providing 30 parking spaces. A 23,100-square-foot central utility plant. Access roads to relocated glycol tanks and deicing pads. Hydrant fuel system. Supplemental EA Chapter 2: Modified Action August

28 Relocated project components: The Modified Action would relocate the following, FAA-approved project components. The proposed terminal and concourses would be moved 225 feet south of its originally proposed location. A 4,000-space, 480,000-square-foot parking garage planned for the west side of the airport would be relocated to the north of the terminal and would be reduced to be a 396,000-square-foot, 2,089-parking space, five-story parking garage. Access roads and circulation system would be re-aligned to reduce wetland effects and simplify traffic patterns. A proposed 70,000-square-foot, 240-space taxi waiting lot north of the roadway system would be relocated to the center of the roadway system and would be increased to be a 90,000-square-foot, 354-space taxi waiting lot. A 4,700-square-foot airfield lighting vault. Glycol tanks and deicing pads. A blue water disposal station to process aircraft lavatory waste for proper disposal. A storm water pumping station would be moved 1,000 feet west so it is closer to a discharge canal. Moving three NAVAIDS the proposed terminal would displace. Taxiway G would be moved 320 feet north of the previously approved location to improve aircraft movement. A transit center would be relocated under elevated roadways serving the terminal complex in lieu of a center northeast of the proposed terminal. Reduced project components. The following features have been reduced in size or length. The number of overnight parking spots for aircraft would be reduced from 13 to 10. The proposed removal of the 2,615-foot-long Taxiway D would not occur. About 420 feet would remain to provide better aircraft access from the proposed terminal to Taxiway S. The length of the proposed improvements to Bainbridge Road would be reduced. Demolitions. The following features will be demolished and removed. Concourses B and C and the portion of the existing east terminal east of the Parabola would be demolished and removed. Supplemental EA Chapter 2: Modified Action August

29 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Supplemental EA Chapter 2: Modified Action August

30 CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES This chapter discusses environmental effects associated with revisions to the Approved Action that the NOAB is proposing. Those changes represent the Modified Action in this Supplemental EA. To meet FAA requirements, this chapter focuses on the environmental impact categories outlined in FAA Orders E, Change 1, and B. As demonstrated in the 2013 EA, the following environmental resources do not occur within the Study Areas, which are the same from the 2013 EA, evaluated in this Supplemental EA: 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 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. As a result, this Supplemental EA does not discuss these resource categories. In addition, re-evaluation of the Approved Action shows that the Modified Action would have the same effects to the following environmental resources that were reported in the 2013 EA: Department of Transportation: Section 4(f). No Section 4(f) resources are on Airport property and the 2013 EA concluded that no Section 4(f) resources would be affected by the Approved Action. The Modified Action does not result in any impacts to off-airport properties; thus, no Section 4(f) impacts would occur with the implementation of the Modififed Action. Fish, Wildlife, and Plants. The majority of the Airport Study Area is regularly maintained to support safe Airport operations and is therefore, void of Federally-endangered and/or State-designated species and critical habitat. Historic, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources. The State Historic Preservation Officer concurred with the FAA determination that the existing terminal is not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Thus, the demolition of Concourses B and C would have no effect on any historic resources. Secondary (Induced) Impacts. The Modified Action may enhance business or economic activity with construction and operation of Modified Action. Wetlands. The roadways associated with the Modified Action have been realigned to avoid all wetlands on the project site. Therefore, the Modified Action would not result in any impacts to wetlands. 3-1

31 Based on these findings and per the guidance provided in FAA Order B, paragraph 706.e and FAA Order E, Change 1, paragraph 405f(1), this Supplemental EA need not discuss those environmental resource categories further. Further, the re-evaluation shows the Modified Action would cause effects on the following environmental resources that are different than the effects reported in the 2013 EA: Air Quality; Coastal Resources; Compatible Land Use; Construction Impacts; Floodplains; Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste; Light Emissions and Visual Effects; Natural Resources, Energy Supply, and Sustainable Design; Noise; Socioeconomic Impacts, Environmental Justice, and Children s Health and Safety Risks; Water Quality; and Cumulative Impacts. Thus, this Supplemental EA integrates the requirements of NEPA and other environmental review procedures applicable to the affected resources that agency practices require. The integration will allow required review procedures to run concurrently, rather than consecutively AIR QUALITY The 2013 EA described the air quality in the Airport Study Area and the air quality effects associated with implementing the Approved Action. Since this Supplemental EA addresses only the air quality effects that the Modified Action would cause, this section: describes the air quality in the Airport Study Area as noted in the 2013 EA and, if necessary, updates that information; summarizes the impacts on air quality that the Approved Action would have caused as noted in the 2013 EA; and describes any changes to those impacts that the Modified Action would cause Background This section provides a summary of construction-induced and vehicular emissions for the Approved Action, as discussed in the 2013 EA. The data allow comparison of those emissions between the Approved Action and the Modified Action. This Supplemental EA does not include an updated discussion of emissions for aircraft operations because the Modified Action would not 1 Title 40 CFR (c), Protection of the Environment, Council on Environmental Quality, Policy. 3-2

32 alter aircraft operations or ground movements. Thfe 2013 EA noted that the Approved Action would not increase the number of operations, nor would it affect the aircraft fleet mix serving the Airport. However, it would require changes in aircraft ground operations due to newly configured aircraft aprons and taxiways needed to serve the Approved Action. Construction Emissions Construction of airport improvements associated with the Approved Action were assumed to occur from 2016 to Table 3-1 provides the construction emissions disclosed in the 2013 EA. Table EA CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS SUMMARY FOR THE APPROVED ACTION Pollutant /a/ Total De Exceedance? Emissions (tons per year) General Conformity Minimis Carbon monoxide (CO) N/A Volatile Organic 1 1 < No Compounds (VOC) Nitrous Oxide (NO x) No Sulfur dioxide (SO 2) <1 <1 <1 <1 -- N/A PM N/A PM < N/A Source: USEPA NONROAD2008a, 2009; USEPA MOVES2010b, KB Environmental Sciences, Inc., 2013 Vehicular Emissions The effects of the Approved Action on surface traffic demand volumes were assessed in the 2013 EA. The analysis was based on modeling short-term traffic count data and was used in conjunction with Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LaDOTD) adjustment factors to compute annual average vehicle miles traveled (AAVMT). The computed AAVMT associated with the Approved Action for major roadways surrounding the Airport is summarized in Table 3-2 and corresponding vehicular emissions are presented in Table Methodology This Supplemental EA uses a methodology similar to the one used in the 2013 EA to determine how the Modified Action would affect air quality. For reader convenience, this subsection summarizes that methodology. This EA uses information in Appendix 2 of FAA Order E, Change 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures and FAA s 2014 Aviation Emissions and 3-3

33 Air Quality Handbook, Version 3 2, which replaced the guidance methodology used in the 2013 EA, the FAA s 1997 Air Quality Procedures for Civilian Airports & Air Force Bases. Table EA SURFACE TRAFFIC ACTIVITY IN ANNUAL AVERAGE VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (AAVMT) Roadway Segment Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (AVMT) Airline Drive (between Farrar Ave and Terminal Loop Road) 2,857,417 3,269,760 Airline Drive (between Terminal Loop Road and Airport Access Road) Veterans Memorial Blvd (between Loyola Drive and Airport Access Road) 8,271,470 9,465,096 15,254,108 16,294,698 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 boundary) 10,066,266 11,106,856 Total 187,098, ,194,315 Source: Urban Systems Traffic Assessment, 2013 Construction Emissions Construction emissions for the Modified Action were estimated using the Airport Construction Emissions Inventory Tool (ACEIT), which uses emissions factors contained within the 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 ambient temperature data specific to the Airport Study Area. It is assumed that the intensity of construction activities would occur at a constant rate throughout the duration of an all-year project construction schedule; therefore, criteria pollutant emissions are equally distributed throughout the years of project construction. 2 Federal Aviation Administration. Aviation Emissions and Air Quality Handbook, Version 3 (2014). Available at: ndices.pdf 3-4

34 Table 3-3 OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS SUMMARY 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, Future No Action 2, ,8 19 2,3 38 2, Approved Action Increment De minimis Exceeds De N/A No No N/A N/A N/A minimis? Source: KB Environmental Sciences, Inc., 2013 N/ A No No N/A N/A N/A Vehicular Emissions This Supplemental EA does not evaluate vehicle emissions for the Modified Action s partially redesigned surface roadway system. While the Modified Action s access roadway system is 25 percent larger in terms of total linear feet than the system evaluated in the 2013 EA, it would not require vehicles to drive longer distances to their destinations. This is because the partially redesigned system has a more efficient design that includes more roadways that directly link drivers with their intended destination. It was assumed that the same number of vehicles would operate on the redesigned surface roadway system and AAVMT would remain unchanged. Greenhouse Gasses (GHGs) This Supplemental EA uses instructions in FAA s January 12, 2012 memo to determine projectrelated effects of GHGs in the Airport Study Area. This Supplemental EA uses information in that memo to disclose and explain those effects. Stationary Sources Stationary source emissions were not examined in the 2013 EA. Emissions from the proposed CUP in this Supplemental EA were calculated using peak natural gas consumption estimates, natural gas combustion emission factors located in the EPA s EP-42 manual, capacity and type of the proposed boilers, and a potential range of annual usage patterns. These calculations resulted in extremely conservative estimates that would need to be refined during the EPA s Title V permitting 3-5

35 process for a new or modified stationary source. A Title V permit would be required because the proposed CUP is considered to be a major stationary source which is defined as a source of emissions with the potential to emit 100 TPY or more of any pollutant. 3 The EPA has delegated Title V permitting authority to the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ). The Airport Sponsor will acquire a Title V permit from the LDEQ and adhere to all of the Title V permit requirements (e.g., public review and public comment period) Threshold of Significance This Supplemental EA uses the same threshold of significance that the 2013 EA used to determine the magnitude of the air quality impacts of the Modified Action. For reader convenience, this subsection repeats the significance threshold. FAA Order E, Change 1, Appendix A2.3 defines the threshold of significance for air quality impacts as follows: Potentially significant air quality impacts associated with an FAA project or action would be demonstrated by the project or action exceeding one or more of the NAAQS [National Ambient Air Quality Standards] for any of the time periods analyzed Affected Environment The existing conditions associated with air quality in the Airport Study Area have changed since the publication of the 2013 EA, which used data. Table 3-4 presents a summary of the new data that has become available since the 2013 EA was published. These 2014 data represent existing air quality conditions. The New Orleans area was historically designated a nonattainment area under the previous 1- hour O 3 NAAQS, but is in attainment with 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 (CAA). 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 for the Modified Action Environmental Consequences The Modified Action would change some of the air quality impacts identified in the 2013 EA because some project components have been added or modified. These additional and modified components would alter the construction emissions reported in the 2013 EA USC Subsection 7602 Definitions, part J - Except as otherwise expressly provided, the terms major stationary source and major emitting facility mean any stationary facility or source of air pollutants which directly emits, or has the potential to emit, one hundred tons per year or more of any air pollutant (including any major emitting facility or source of fugitive emissions of any such pollutant, as determined by rule by the Administrator). 3-6

36 Table 3-4 AIR QUALITY MONITORING DATA IN THE AIRPORT STUDY AREA (2009, 2010, 2011, and 2014) Site Name and Address (Dir. from MSY) 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 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 Pollutant PM 2.5 PM 10 Pb CO SO 2 NO 2 O 3 Averaging Period Annual (averaged over 3 years) 24-hour (98th percentile, averaged over 3 years) 24-hour Rolling 3- month Avg. NAAQS 15 µg/m 3 35 µg/m µg/m 3.15 µg/m 3 Year Exceeds NAAQS No No N/A No The 3-month avg. statistic is currently not available 8-hour 9 ppm N/A No 1-hour 35 ppm NA N/A No 1-hour (99th percentile, averaged over 3 years) 75 ppb Yes 3-hour.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 (4thhighest, averaged over 3 years).075 ppm /a/ 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

37 Air Quality Impacts that the Modified Action would not change. The Modified Action s added or modified project components would not affect aircraft operational characteristics such as runway use, aircraft taxi times and ground service equipment movement patterns. As a result, the Modified Action would not change the aircraft-related emissions noted in the 2013 EA. For this reason, this Supplemental EA does not discuss aircraftrelated emissions. In addition, AAVMT noted in the 2013 EA would not change, despite the Modified Action having an access roadway system that is 25 percent larger than the system the 2013 EA evaluated. This is because the Modified Action s newly-designed access roadway system provides more direct roadway access to specific destinations, but would not require individuals to drive longer distances in order to reach their respective destinations. As a result, this Supplemental EA does not discuss non-construction, vehicular emissions. Air Quality Impacts that the Modified Action would change. As noted above, the Modified Action would add components or modify some facilities that the Approved Action included. Stationary Sources Central Utility Plant The proposed central utility plant, which would provide utilities to the proposed terminal structure, would include water chillers and boiler systems. The chillers would be powered by electricity and the boilers would be powered by natural gas. The boilers would have a total capacity of 20,000 MMBtu per hour; however, the need to run the proposed boilers near full capacity is not anticipated. Peak natural gas load associated with operation of the new terminal is presented in Table 3-5. Table 3-6 presents the estimated peak natural gas load emissions that would occur if the proposed central utility plant ran at 100% capacity. Table 3-5 MAXIMUM NATURAL GAS CONSUMPTION ESTIMATES Component Consumption Estimate /a/ Terminal Heating 24,500 Terminal Concessions and Airline Club 3,600 Terminal Expansion Heating 7,600 Terminal Expansion Concessions 1,000 Maximum Total 36,700 /a/ : Cubic feet per hour Source: Airware LLC, Prepared by: RS&H, The existing central utility plant located on the south side of the airfield accommodates the existing terminal structure. Compared to the existing terminal, the Modified Action would result 3-8

38 in the reduction of terminal space. In addition, the new central utility plant would be more efficient than the existing central utility plant. Therefore, a reduction in emissions from stationary sources is anticipated and this would not have an adverse effect on air quality in the area. Table 3-6 PEAK EMISSIONS ESTIMATES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED CENTRAL UTILITY PLANT /a/ Timeframe CO NOx Pb Per Hour <0.001 Per Day <0.001 Per Year 29,902 68, /a/ : Tons per year Source: EPA, 1998; RS&H, Prepared by: RS&H, Construction Emissions Modification of project components originally described in the 2013 EA and the addition of project components to that project have influenced the intensity at which construction would occur. Additional and modified project components would result in increased construction-related emissions when compared to the 2013 EA. Table 3-7 lists the proposed facilities and their respective construction emissions. As shown in Table 3-8, the Modified Action s construction emissions would not exceed de minimis thresholds for any year in which construction activities would occur. Although the Modified Action is not subject to General Conformity requirements (see Section of this document), it is useful to compare the Modified Action s estimated emissions to the de minimis levels defined in the General Conformity Rule and to provide information for NEPA purposes. The applicable de minimis thresholds for areas like New Orleans, which are 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. The information in Table 3-8 shows the Modified Action s NOx and VOC construction emissions are below the de minimis levels for those pollutants and other criteria pollutants. As a result, the Modified Action s constructionrelated emissions are not expected to have a significant adverse effect on the air quality of the area. 3-9

39 Table 3-7 MODIFIED ACTION CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS OF CRITERIA POLLUTANTS /a/ Project Name CO NO x SO 2 PM10 PM2.5 VOC N 2O Terminal Construction Parking Garage Access Roadway System Demolition of Existing Roadways > Taxi Waiting Lot Hotel Concourse & Terminal Demolition Relocation of NAVAIDS & Vault RON Parking Public Surface Lots Managers Parking Lot >.001 Cell Phone Lot >.001 Drainage Pump Station >.001 Taxiway D Demolition > >.001 Realignment of Taxiway G Central Utility Plant Water Disposal Station > >.001 Glycol Tank and Access Roadway >.001 Hydrant Fueling Station >.001 Total: /a/: Units in tons. Sources: USEPA NONROAD 2008a, 2009; USEPA MOVES 2010b, 2011; ACEIT 1.0, 2014; RS&H, 2015 Table 3-8 ANNUAL CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS DURING EACH CONSTRUCTION YEAR /a/b Pollutant De minimis threshold De minimis Exceedance? CO No NO x No SO No PM No PM No VOC No N 2O No /a/: Tons per year; Source: RS&H, 2015 /b/: Based on constant construction rate over the 3-year construction period. Criteria pollutant emissions are equally distributed throughout the that period. 3-10

40 3.1.4 Mitigation or Best Management Practices The mitigation and best management practices (BMPs) identified in the 2013 EA remain valid for the Modified Action. For reader convenience, these mitigation or BMPs are repeated below: 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. 3.2 COASTAL RESOURCES The 2013 EA described the coastal resources in the Airport Study Area and the coastal resource effects the Approved Action would have caused. Because this Supplemental EA addresses only the coastal resource effects that the Modified Action would cause, the section: describes the coastal resources in the Airport Study Area as noted in the 2013 EA and, if necessary, updates that information; summarizes the impacts on coastal resources that the Approved Action would have caused as noted in the 2013 EA; and if necessary, describes any changes to those impacts that the Modified Action would cause Background The 2013 EA reported that the Approved Action would cause the following coastal resource impacts: Disruption (e.g., cut and fill activities) of previously disturbed and undisturbed land within the area that the Louisiana Coastal Resources Program (LCRP) protects. 3-11

41 Methodology This Supplemental EA uses the same methodology that the 2013 EA used to determine how the Modified Action would affect coastal resources. For reader convenience, this subsection summarizes that methodology. The analyses contained in this Supplemental EA follows the requirements of the regulations of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) 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 Coastal Use Permit (CUP) as part of this Supplemental EA. The Office of Coastal Management (OCM), the Office responsible for overseeing the State s coastal zone program, determined that the Modified Action was exempt from a CUP in accordance with LA Rev Stat 49:214.34(a)(2). That regulation exempts an action that would occur within fastlands (i.e., areas enclosed by levees and drained by pumps) unless the Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources determines the action would have direct or significant impacts on coastal waters. See Appendix A for the exemption letter from the OCM. Floodplains and wetlands, which are both important components of coastal resources, were reviewed in relation to impacts from the Modified Action Threshold of Significance This Supplemental EA uses the same threshold of significance that the 2013 EA used to determine the Modified Action s magnitude of coastal resource impacts. For reader convenience, this subsection repeats the significance threshold. FAA Order E, Change 1, 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: The State agency objects to a sponsor consistency certification because the proposed action is inconsistent with the State s CZM Plan; or The sponsor does not successfully appeal the State agency s objection to the NOAA Assistant Administrator. 3-12

42 In either of these cases, the FAA shall not approve such an action unless it includes State agencyrecommended changes that would make the proposed action consistent with the State s CZM Plan Affected Environment The 2013 EA provided a description of the coastal resources in the Airport Study Area. No changes in the existing conditions for coastal resources have occurred since the publication of the 2013 EA. For reader convenience, a summary of the existing conditions is presented here. Louisiana has 15,000 miles of shoreline, located in 19 southern parishes, and extends from the Pearl River westward to the Sabine River. The OCM is charged with implementing the 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. 5 The Airport Study Area is entirely within Jefferson Parish, which is in the Louisiana Coastal Zone. The impact of the LCRP is critically important to the future of the Parish. Figure 3-1 depicts the Louisiana Coastal Zone and the Airport location within the Louisiana Coastal Zone. Under the LCRP, each Parish is able to develop a local coastal program (LCP). Once an LCP has received Federal and State approvals, the Parish becomes the permitting authority for coastal uses of local concern. Per its approved LCP, Jefferson Parish divided the Parish into 12 environmental management units (EMU) to effectively manage the Parish s coastal resources (see Figure 3-2). 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, which is about one mile south of the Airport, and the west by St. Charles Parish. The East Bank EMU is over 80 percent developed: continued planned developments; improved transportation corridors; improved drainage and sewage treatment facilities; and pollution abatement. 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 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 17th Street Canal. 4 FAA Order E, Change 1, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, Appendix A, Section 3.4. (1)-(2). 5 Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, A Coastal User s Guide to the Louisiana Coastal Resources Program,

43 Figure 3-1 LOUISIANA COASTAL ZONE Source: Department of Natural Resources Office of Coastal Management,

44 Figure 3-2 JEFFERSON PARISH MANAGEMENT UNITS Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport Source: Department of Natural Resource Louisiana Coastal Programs (Jefferson Parish), 2013 Since development occupies most of the East Bank EMU 3, there are no existing significant biotic communities in that EMU. The East Bank EMU 3 is mostly comprised of vegetation typically found in disturbed areas and suburban lawn vegetation according to the Department of Natural Resources. 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 Environmental Consequences The Modified Action would change some of the coastal resource impacts identified in the 2013 EA. 3-15

45 Coastal Resource Impacts that the Modified Action would not change. The Modified Action would not change the following coastal resource impacts noted in the 2013 EA: Disturb (e.g., cut and fill activities) wetlands within the Louisiana Coastal Zone. These impacts would not change because the construction of the Modified Action would occur within the Louisiana Coastal Zone. Coastal Resource Impacts that the Modified Action would change. Location and amount of land disturbed within the Louisiana Coastal Zone, particularly as it relates to floodplains. When compared to the 2013 EA, the Modified Action would decrease the acreage of affected floodplains (see Section 3.5 of this Supplemental EA). As described in Section , a revised Joint Permit Application has been submitted to the OCM. Because the potential coastal resource impacts due to the Modified Action are not significantly different than those analyzed in the 2013 EA and because the Modified Action is located in an area designated as fastland (i.e., areas enclosed by levees and drained by pumps) by the OCM, the Modified Action is exempt from the CUP. Additionally, the Modified Action would be consistent with the Jefferson Parish LCP, and therefore, would be consistent with the LCRP. Overall, the Modified Action would not significantly change the coastal resource impacts identified in the 2013 EA and would not result in significant coastal resource impacts Mitigation or Best Management Practices The mitigation and best management practices (BMPs) 6 identified in the 2013 EA remain valid for the Modified Action. For reader convenience, the mitigation or BMPs are repeated below. As noted in Sections and 3.2.3, the Modified Action is exempt from the CUP and no permit-required mitigation would apply to the Action. However, BMPs would be used to reduce any negative effects to the coastal zone that could occur due to that Action. BMP examples include, but are not limited to: mulching cleared vegetation; distributing mulch to disturbed areas to control erosion and runoff; and using straw bale barriers or sediment traps to control stormwater runoff. 6 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. 3-16

46 3.3 COMPATIBLE LAND USE The 2013 EA described the land use in the Airport Study Area and the land use compatibility effects the Approved Action would have caused. Because this Supplemental EA addresses only the land use compatibility effects that the Modified Action would cause, the section: describes the land use in the Airport Study Area as noted in the 2013 EA and, if necessary, updates that information; summarizes the impacts on land use compatibility that the Approved Action would have caused as noted in the 2013 EA; and if necessary, describes any changes to those impacts that the Modified Action would cause Background The 2013 EA reported that the Approved Action would cause the following compatible land use impacts: increase vehicular traffic on surface roadways north of the Airport; concentrate commercial aircraft movement on the north side of the Airport; and alter vehicular traffic patterns (i.e., 27 th Street would no longer be a through street and all connections between neighborhoods along 27 th Street that are west and east of Aberdeen Street would occur along Veterans Memorial Boulevard). During the scoping session and outreach to the local school district for the 2013 EA, no concerns from neighborhood residents or school district administrators were expressed regarding the closure of 27 th Street. The 2013 EA noted that the Approved Action would not cause any land uses that were incompatible with the Airport s activities Methodology This Supplemental EA uses the same methodology that the 2013 EA used to determine how the Modified Action would affect land use compatibility. For reader convenience, this subsection summarizes that methodology. This Supplemental EA evaluates various local and regional agency land use plans and regulations. In doing so, the Supplemental EA examines and discloses the consistency of the Modified Action with those plans and regulations. A major portion of that examination summarizes how projectinduced noise changes would potentially affect noise-sensitive land uses in the area studied (e.g., homes, schools, churches, hospitals, and businesses). That examination relies heavily on the information the Integrated Noise Model (INM) produces. Section 3.9 of this Supplementation EA provides more information on noise. 3-17

47 To identify existing land uses, land use maps of the City of Kenner and the NOAB were reviewed. In addition, that information was supplemented by information obtained during an October 2012 drive-by survey of the Airport Study Area Threshold of Significance This Supplemental EA uses the same thresholds of significance that the 2013 EA used to determine the magnitude of the land use compatibility impacts of the Modified Action. For reader convenience, this subsection repeats those thresholds. If a Proposed Action would cause a disruption of communities, relocation of residents, or induced socioeconomic impacts, it would affect existing compatible land use. FAA Order E, Change 1, Appendix A, Section 4.1a, states: 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. Therefore, if a noise analysis concludes that there is no significant impact, a similar conclusion usually may be drawn about compatible land use. Regarding a significant noise effect, Section 14.3 Appendix A of the Order states: A significant noise impact would occur if analysis shows that the Proposed Action will cause noise sensitive areas to experience an 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 Affected Environment The 2013 EA provided a description of the land uses in the Airport Study Area. No changes in the existing conditions for land uses have occurred since the publication of the 2013 EA. For reader convenience, a summary of the existing conditions is presented here. 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 3-3): 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

48 3.3.3 Environmental Consequences The Modified Action would not change any of the land use compatibility impacts identified in the 2013 EA. This is because the Modified Action would not change the amount of vehicular traffic to or from the Airport or the concentration of aircraft movements to the north side of the airfield noted in the 2013 EA. As described in Chapter 2 of this Supplemental EA, the Modified Action reduces the length of improvements to Bainbridge Avenue, an off-airport roadway, analyzed in the 2013 EA. Although different from what was analyzed in the 2013 EA, the Modified Action s reduction in improvements to Bainbridge Avenue would not cause significant changes to the traffic patterns in the Airport vicinity (see Section 3.10). Other aspects of the Modified Action described in Chapter 2 (e.g., development of a hotel, addition of a central utility plant, addition of glycol tanks) would occur on Airport property. However, none would significantly change the aviation noise or vehicular impacts to the surrounding areas as noted in the 2013 EA, (see Sections 3.9 and 3.10, respectively). Additionally, the Modified Action is consistent with the City of Kenner s zoning of the Airport as an aviation heavy industrial district. According to Article XVI(A) of the City of Kenner Code of Ordinances, the purpose of the aviation-heavy industrial district is to provide for airports, airfields, airstrips, aviation-related facilities and compatible industrial operations of all types. Airport hotel facilities are specifically allowed within this zoning designation. Based on the above information and examination of various local and regional agency land use plans and regulations, the Modified Action would not: disrupt local communities or be inconsistent with local land use regulations; require the relocation of residents; or cause induced socioeconomic impacts. As a result, the Modified Action would not adversely affect existing compatible land uses Mitigation or Best Management Practices The 2013 EA did not include mitigation or BMPs to minimize land use compatibility effects. The Modified Action would not cause any new land use compatibility impacts. Therefore, the Modified Action does not warrant new mitigation or BMPs. 3-19

49 Figure 3-3 LAND USES WITHIN THE AIRPORT STUDY AREA Source: NOAB, 2012; City of Kenner,

50 3.4 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS The 2013 EA described the construction effects the Approved Action would have caused. Because this Supplemental EA addresses only the construction effects that the Modified Action would cause, the section: summarizes the construction impacts of the Approved Action as noted in the 2013 EA; and if necessary, describes any changes to those impacts that the Modified Action would cause. [Note: The 2013 EA did not include a discussion of construction in the Affected Environment chapter because there were no existing conditions as they relate to construction impacts. Similarly, this Supplemental EA does not include an affected environment discussion for construction impacts] Background The 2013 EA reported that the Approved Action would cause the following construction impacts: temporary increase in air pollutant emissions due to heavy equipment and vehicles used for earthmoving, grading, paving, building construction, material handling and other construction activities; temporary increases in the use of gasoline and diesel fuels, as well as temporary increases in the storage of oils, fluids, and lubricants associated with the maintenance of construction equipment. potential temporary increase in lighting (if construction activities were to occur during nighttime hours and daytime glare from construction equipment). temporary increases in the use of consumable materials for the construction of the Approved Action. temporary increases in noise from construction activities. temporary increases in sedimentation and pollutants in stormwater runoff Methodology To determine the construction impacts of the Modified Action, this Supplemental EA uses the same methodology that the 2013 EA used. For reader convenience, this subsection summarizes that 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. 3-21

51 Threshold of Significance This Supplemental EA uses the same threshold of significance that the 2013 EA used to determine the magnitude of the construction impacts. For reader convenience, this subsection repeats that significance threshold. 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 The construction of the Modified Action would cause the same types of impacts described in the 2013 EA; however, the magnitude of those impacts, while not significant, would differ. As Chapter 2 of this Supplemental EA describes, the Modified Action includes the construction of additional components compared to the Approved Action (e.g., development of a hotel; addition of a central utility plant; larger taxi cab waiting area; demolition of Concourses B and C, etc.). The construction associated with these additional components may require the use of more equipment and/or longer use of equipment. This would increase the following impacts: air pollutant and noise emissions due to heavy equipment and vehicles used for earthmoving, grading, paving, building construction, material handling and other construction activities; the use of gasoline and diesel fuels, as well as a temporary increases in volumes of oils, fluids, and lubricants stored on site to maintain construction equipment; lighting effects, if construction activities occur at night or daytime glare from construction equipment. In addition, ground disturbance (e.g., demolition of portions of the east terminal and Concourses B and C, the addition of a hydrant fueling system, or the excavation for the parking garage) would increase sedimentation and pollutants in stormwater runoff. The additional components of the Modified Action (e.g., addition of a hotel, addition of parking, etc.) would also increase the amount of consumable materials (see Section 3.6 of this Supplemental EA). Overall, the increase in the magnitude of construction impacts would not be significant, particularly when the reduction in improvements for other portions of the Modified Action compared to the Approved Action are taken into consideration (e.g., reduction in length of Taxiway D to be removed, reduction in length of improvements for Bainbridge Avenue). Additionally, the use of BMPs would reduce the potential construction impacts of the Modified Action (see Section 3.4.3). Additionally, due to the existing vegetative buffer and industrial and commercial land uses to light-sensitive land uses in the Kenner neighborhood (approximately 3-22

52 1,500 feet north of the Modified Action construction equipment is not anticipated to cause highly annoying or disruptive, temporary light emissions or that construction would result in noise generation that would exceed any noise ordinance, expose individuals to excessive ground-borne vibrations, or result in unacceptable ambient noise levels Mitigation or Best Management Practices The mitigation and BMPs identified in the 2013 EA remain valid for the Modified Action. For reader convenience, these mitigation or best management practices are repeated below. The following measures and BMPs during construction are examples of ways to 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 stockpiled materials; install cleaning pads to deter tracking dirt and mud to areas outside the Airport as vehicles leave the disturbed, project-related work sites; and reduce vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to minimize dust. In addition, the Airport Sponsor would use centralized, temporary facilities to store fuel, oil, lubricants, and building materials during construction as a BMP to minimize public and environmental exposure to construction-related hazardous materials. In the event of accidents involving the release of those materials, the Airport Sponsor-selected 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. For example, if a fuel spill occurs, the contractor would immediately stop activities near the spill and carry out remediation per applicable local, state, and Federal requirements, including contacting the National Response Center (NRC). The Airport Sponsor would also be responsible for obtaining a Louisiana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (LPDES) permit prior to the start of ground disturbing activities. Compliance with the permit s 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 best practice measures throughout the construction period would minimize project-related water quality effects. Erosion and sedimentation controls usually consist of: 3-23

53 silt fencing and sediment basins; erosion control blankets on steep slopes and swales; inlet protection; and seeding and mulching. Other applicable provisions noted in 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. 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 its 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 construction-related, good housekeeping measures often include the following: Materials Management: Neat and orderly storage of any chemicals, pesticides, fertilizers, fuels, other substances being kept at the site. Waste Disposal: Regular garbage, rubbish, construction waste, and sanitary waste disposal and the reuse of debris from demolition activities as fill material to reduce the volume of construction debris disposed in local landfills. Spill Response: Prompt cleanup of any spills of hydraulic fluids, liquid or dry materials; 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 like the following to minimize the potential for fuel/oil spills during construction: 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; and Performance of regular preventative maintenance on all equipment to prevent leaks. The Airport Sponsor would obtain the proper LDPES permit before beginning construction of the Modified Action. Incorporating the permit requirements and the above measures in the final project design would minimize the Modified Action s water quality impacts. 3-24

54 3.5 FLOODPLAINS The 2013 EA described floodplains in the Airport Study Area and the floodplains effects the Approved Action would have caused. Since this Supplemental EA addresses only the floodplains effects that the Modified Action would cause, the section: describes the floodplains in the Airport Study Area as noted in the 2013 EA and, if necessary, updates that information; summarizes the impacts on floodplains that the Approved Action would have caused as noted in the 2013 EA; and describes any changes to those impacts that the Modified Action would cause Background The 2013 EA reported that the Approved Action would result in the direct effect to 26.3 acres of floodplains Methodology This Supplemental EA uses the same methodology that the 2013 EA used to determine how the Modified Action would affect floodplains. For reader convenience, this subsection summarizes that 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: develops conceptual measures to mitigate unavoidable floodplain effects; determines if the Modified 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 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 Threshold of Significance This Supplemental EA uses the same threshold of significance that the 2013 EA used to determine the magnitude of the floodplains impacts of the Modified Action. For reader convenience, this subsection repeats the significance threshold. 3-25

55 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 Affected Environment The 2013 EA provided a description of the floodplains in the Airport Area Study. No changes to existing floodplain conditions have occurred since the publication of the 2013 EA. For reader convenience, a summary of the existing conditions that EA reported is presented here. The Greater New Orleans area, including the Airport Study Area is located in a natural floodplain. To protect against floods, the City of New Orleans 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. The preliminary maps were published in the Federal Register on April 4, 2013 (Federal Register Volume 78, No. 65). A public comment period, known as the final appeal and protest period, was held and comments submitted prior to July 3, Preliminary 3-26

56 DFIRMs for Jefferson Parish were expected to be effective in the fall of 2014, but are now expected to be effective in late For flood insurance rating purposes, Jefferson Parish uses the current effective FIRMs dated March 23, For building and permitting, Jefferson Parish East Bank uses the Preliminary DFIRM panels released by FEMA in 2008 (see Figure 3-4 for floodplains in the Airport Study Area). The proposed model update would result in the following changes to the floodplain at the Airport: 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, the 2012 Preliminary DFIRMs were used for regulatory purposes for the Approved Action. The Airport is within floodplain zone AE, the 100-year floodplain. Zone AE is defined as areas subject to inundation by the 1-percent-annual-chance flood event determined by detailed methods (FEMA, 2015) Environmental Consequences The Modified Action would cause the following change to the floodplains effects identified in the 2013 EA: the location and amount of land disturbed within the floodplains. Due to its location in Zone AE, the Modified Action, like the Approved Action, would unavoidably affect the 100-year floodplain (see Figure 3-4); however, the Modified Action would affect less floodplain area than the Approved Action (see Figure 3-5). As noted in Table 3-9, the Approved Action (discussed in the 2013 EA) would have directly affected 26.3 acres of floodplains, while the Modified Action would directly affect approximately 19.5 acres of floodplains. 3-27

57 Figure 3-4 FLOODPLAIN MAP IN AIRPORT STUDY AREA /a/ /a/ St. Charles Parish floodplain boundary is not included in this figure. 3-28

58 Figure 3-5 FLOODPLAIN IMPACTS FOR MODIFIED ACTION 3-29

59 Table 3-9 IMPERVIOUS SURFACE FLOODPLAIN IMPACTS Approved Action Acreage Terminal and Access ,000-space Parking Garage (North Side) 1.50 Taxi Holding Area 2.20 TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE FLOODPLAIN IMPACT Modified Action Terminal Relocation, Concourses, and Apron ,089-space Parking Garage 0.19 Roadway Access 7.66 Taxi Waiting Parking 3.67 Hotel 0.19 Remain Overnight Parking 1.10 Surface Parking Lots 2.88 Central Utility Plant 2.32 TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE FLOODPLAIN IMPACT Source: RS&H, 2015 As shown in Table 3-9, the Modified Action would reduce the amount of impervious surface acreage within the floodplains at the Airport compared to the Approved Action by 6.79 acres. As with the 2013 EA, to comply with minimum floodplain standards required by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) for new buildings in a Zone AE floodplain, the Approved Action s new terminal, moved 225 feet south of its original location in the Modified Action, would have to be elevated to be at 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 to minimize adverse impacts to floodplain storage and control values. 3-30

60 The terminal, parking lots, proposed roadway access, hotel, and central utility plant that are components of the Modified Action would convert acres of floodplains to impervious surface. Solutions to the additional drainage and runoff from this acreage include pumping the runoff into existing canals to maintain the pre-development discharge conditions and minimizing fill as much as possible. As with the 2013 EA, the Modified Action 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. Since the Modified Action decreases the amount of impervious surface within the floodplains at the Airport by approximately 6.79 acres when compared to the Approved Action, the Modified Action would not result in a significant encroachment, meaning it has balance among environmental, social, economic, and operational factors. Overall, the Modified Action would reduce floodplains impacts identified in the 2013 EA by about 25 percent and, therefore, would not cause significant floodplains impacts Mitigation or Best Management Practices Due to the Airport s location, there are no practicable alternatives that would totally avoid floodplains. Placing fill in a base floodplain would adversely affect the floodplain s natural flood storage values and functions. This would occur because fill reduces the floodplain s ability to store water and slows water flow. This combination raises the base flood elevation, causing flooding in areas outside the floodplain. As shown in Figures 3-4 and 3-5, the NOAB has, in the Modified Action, reduced the floodplain effects of future airport development as much as possible while meeting the Airport s present and future passenger and operational needs. Decreasing the impervious surface area the Approved Action would have caused, moving a storm water pumping station 1,000 feet to the west to improve storm water discharge rates, and adhering to floodplain development standards discussed below would minimize the Modified Action s unavoidable effects to the floodplain s natural and beneficial floodplain values. The mitigation or best management practices identified in the 2013 EA remain valid for the Modified Action. For reader convenience, these mitigation or best management practices are repeated below. 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 (HECRAS). In addition, a strategy involving pumping additional runoff from project-related impervious surfaces into existing canals (i.e., Canal 14, Canal 19, or the Duncan Canal) would maintain predevelopment discharge conditions. The NOAB would coordinate the strategy with federal, state and local agencies to ensure flood protection infrastructure is capable of handling the Modified 3-31

61 Action s runoff. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Federal Emergency Management Agency have been notified of the Modified Action and concurrence with the strategy is forthcoming (see Appendix B). Based on the above information, the Modified Action would not cause flooding in areas along Canal 14, Canal 19, or the Duncan Canal or adversely affect airport operations or other transportation facilities in the Airport Study Area. 3.6 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, POLLUTION PREVENTION, AND SOLID WASTE The 2013 EA described hazardous materials, pollution prevention, and solid waste conditions in the Airport Study Area and the effects the Approved Action would have on those conditions. Since this Supplemental EA addresses only the hazardous materials, pollution prevention, and solid waste effects that the Modified Action would cause, the section: describes the hazardous materials, pollution prevention, and solid waste in the Airport Study Area as noted in the 2013 EA and, if necessary, updates that information; summarizes the impacts on hazardous materials, pollution prevention, and solid waste that the Approved Action would have caused as noted in the 2013 EA; and if necessary, describes any changes to those impacts that the Modified Action would cause Background The 2013 EA reported that the Approved Action would cause the following hazardous materials, pollution prevention, and solid waste effects: short-term increases of hazardous materials resulting from construction activities due to the use of gasoline and diesel fuels by construction equipment, the use of diesel fuels by truck and other equipment accessing the construction areas, and the storage of oils, fluids, and lubricants associated with the maintenance of construction equipment; and construction activities that may lead to the discovery of contaminated soil and/or underground piping from old infrastructure Methodology This Supplemental EA uses the same methodology that the 2013 EA used to determine how the Modified Action would affect hazardous materials, pollution prevention, and solid waste. For reader convenience, this subsection summarizes that methodology. This Supplemental EA uses the information in Chapter 13 of Federal Aviation Administration s (FAA) Environmental Desk Reference for Airport Actions 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

62 Threshold of Significance This Supplemental EA uses the same threshold of significance that the 2013 EA used to determine the magnitude of the hazardous materials, pollution prevention, and solid waste of the Modified Action. For reader convenience, this subsection repeats the significance threshold. FAA Order E, Change 1, 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 the following guidance on using information in the Environmental Consequences Section to determine the level of effect that would occur. If the Airport Sponsor 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 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 Affected Environment The 2013 EA provided a description of the hazardous materials, pollution prevention, and solid waste in the Airport Study Area. No changes in the existing conditions for those concerns have occurred since the publication of the 2013 EA. For reader convenience, a summary of the existing conditions is presented here. The Airport has a current Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which the Airport Sponsor maintains and regularly updates. This SWPPP includes all required quarterly facility inspection reports, annual environmental training logs, quarterly visual inspection logs, and correspondence for the Sponsor and approximately 25 tenants, most of whom 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 3-33

63 on the Airport, directly supplies fuels to tanker trucks. Fuel is transported to the aircraft by Aircraft Services International tanker trucks. A review of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) documentation indicates that there are no sites located within the Airport Study Area listed or under consideration on the National Priorities List. Based on The Banks Regulatory Database Report conducted in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materials Standard there are no known hazardous environmental conditions present within the boundaries of the Airport Environmental Consequences The Modified Action would change some of the Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste effects identified in the 2013 EA. Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste Impacts that the Modified Action would not change. The Modified Action would not change the following hazardous materials, pollution prevention, and solid waste effects noted in the 2013 EA: short-term increases of hazardous materials resulting from construction activities due to the use of gasoline and diesel fuels by construction equipment, the use of diesel fuels by truck and other equipment accessing the construction areas, and the storage of oils, fluids, and lubricants associated with the maintenance of construction equipment; and construction activities that may lead to the discovery of contaminated soil and/or underground piping from old infrastructure. Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, and Solid Waste Impacts that the Modified Action would change. The Modified Action would cause the following hazardous materials, pollution prevention, and solid waste effects: short-term increases of hazardous materials with the construction of the hotel; a minor, long-term increase in solid waste due to operation of the hotel; short-term increases of hazardous materials with the demolition of Concourses B and C and part of the existing east terminal; and long-term presence of hazardous materials with the addition and operation of two glycol tanks a central utility plant, and a hydrant fueling system. The following paragraphs describe in more detail the changes to hazardous materials, pollution prevention, and solid waste impacts that the Modified Action would cause. 3-34

64 Construction of the Hotel The potential construction of the approximately 150-room hotel covering 0.45 acre would be result in short-term impacts. The increase in hazardous materials resulting from construction activities would be the same as those stated in the 2013 EA: short-term increases in the use of gasoline and diesel fuels for construction equipment; short-term use of diesel fuels by truck and other equipment accessing the construction areas; and short-term storage of oils, fluids, and lubricants associated with the maintenance of construction equipment while the Modified Action is being built. Operation of the Hotel The operation of the hotel would increase solid waste. A typical 150- room hotel produces approximately 43 tons of waste per year. 7 That number represents the average amount of annual waste produced without any recycling measures in place. Airport Area landfills are anticipated to have sufficient capacities to handle the solid waste as they each have a useful capacity of up to 30 years. The selected hotel contractor would be responsible for disposing of solid waste associated with operation of the hotel in accordance with Federal, State, and local rules and regulations. Additionally, recycling programs will be encouraged to further reduce the volume of waste generated. Demolition of Concourses B and C The EPA, through its National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), has instituted standards that control renovation or demolition of buildings known to contain asbestos. Materials containing more than one percent asbestos must be abated according to NESHAP standards prior to renovation or demolition activities. Additionally, the State of Louisiana requires an Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Program regarding asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) to be in place prior to renovation or demolition activities, until all ACMs have been removed. A survey was performed in 1992 in Concourse B for hazardous materials, specifically asbestos. The survey did not include Concourse C because it was considered new construction at the time of the survey and assumed to not contain ACMs. The survey of the two-level Concourse B consisted of visual observations, material sampling, and laboratory sampling of materials. More than 450 materials were sampled from thermal system insulation, resilient floor coverings (including that beneath carpeting), resilient base and associated mastic, gypsum wallboard and joint compound, plaster finishes, acoustical ceiling tiles, spray-applied acoustical and textured finishes, sprayapplied structural fireproofing, and miscellaneous materials. 8 ACMs were present in Concourse B, mainly limited to instances of isolated occurrence in resilient floor tiles and associated mastic adhesives. 9 Those materials contain between 10 and 30 percent asbestos. 7 Lincoln Waste Solutions, Hotels/Hospitality Industry Utilizing Waste Audits, Asbestos Survey, Report of Survey for Asbestos-Containing Materials in New Orleans International Airport, Law/R&D, A Team, July 27, Ibid. 3-35

65 The impacts associated with the demolition of Concourses B and C, and part of the existing east terminal would be temporary. The demolition increases the potential for asbestos found in Concourse B to become airborne; however, the Airport Sponsor will develop and implement an O&M Program for asbestos per the State of Louisiana. That Program would apply to Concourse C or the designated portion of the east terminal, if ACMs are found during their demolition. Relocation of Glycol Tanks The relocation of two glycol tanks and deicing pads, and the addition of the access road, to deice aircraft would change the location of use of hazardous materials on the Airport. Tanker trucks would load glycol/water mixtures at the two proposed glycol tanks and deliver deicing fluid to aircraft at the deicing pad location near Concourse A. The proposed deicing pad is not located near in-ground drains. Following a deicing event, glycol collection trucks would collect as much glycol-contaminated stormwater as possible, ensuring that it does not contaminate local water sources. Glycol-contaminated stormwater collected by the trucks would be disposed of in approved sanitary sewer drains and treated at the public water treatment plant receiving Airport runoff. Construction of a Central Utility Plant The impacts associated with the construction of a central utility plant would be temporary. The increase in hazardous materials resulting from construction activities would be the same as those stated in the 2013 EA (see discussion above regarding Construction of the Hotel). Operation of a Central Utility Plant The operation of the central utility plant will increase hazardous materials at the Airport. The central utility plant will contain emergency generators, a diesel fuel system, chillers, and boilers. The Airport Sponsor must get permits from the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) to operate the central utility plant. Permits will be required for the boilers, chillers, generators, diesel fuel storage tanks, and the diesel fuel fire pump at a minimum. Additionally, the Airport Sponsor s SWPPP permit will need to be updated prior to the construction of the central utility plant. Operation of the central utility plant will comply with provisions set forth in all applicable permits and the SWPPP. Addition of Hydrant Fueling System The proposed hydrant fuel system will be designed, built, operated, and maintained by the airlines operating at the Airport. It will consist of an underground system that would pipe fuel from the existing fuel storage facility to aircraft at each aircraft gate. Fueling activities are contained with an airport s SWPPP. The Airport Sponsor will update its SWPPP so that it includes the proposed hydrant fueling system. Summary In summary, although the Modified Action would have temporary and/or minor hazardous materials increases due to the addition of ancillary facilities, construction and operation of hotel, and the demolition of Concourses B and C and part of the existing east terminal, the Airport Sponsor is not expected to have difficulty meeting applicable State, or Federal requirements addressing hazardous wastes or hazardous materials. Additionally, the Modified Action does not involve a property on or eligible for the National Priority List. Therefore, the Modified Action would not significantly change the hazardous materials, pollution prevention, and solid waste impacts 3-36

66 identified in the 2013 EA and would not result in significant hazardous materials, pollution prevention, and solid waste impacts Mitigation or Best Management Practices Because the Modified Action would cause hazardous materials, pollution prevention, and solid waste impacts not identified in the 2013 EA, the Modified Action warrants the following mitigation or BMPs. The Airport Sponsor will create and implement an O&M Program for asbestos per State of Louisiana requirements for the demolition of Concourse B (and if needed Concourses C and a portion of the east terminal). Additionally, the Airport Sponsor will be compliant with regulations the EPA set under the NESHAP regarding the removal of AMCs during concourse demolition activities. The Airport Sponsor will update its SWPPP to account for the proposed deicing activities, the addition of the hydrant fuel system, and the operation of the CUP. Additionally, the Sponsor will comply with the measures prescribed in its SWPPP and any revisions to it the Modified Action warrants. Construction BMPs would include a temporary area for construction equipment staging and maintenance. This BMP 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 fuels and oils. Construction activities from the Modified Action, as well as the operation of the hotel would result in solid waste. Waste would be handled according to Federal, State, and local regulations. Solid waste generated by the Modified Action would be transported to nearby landfills with sufficient capacity to handle the solid waste. The selected construction contractor and hotel contractor would be responsible for the proper disposal of solid waste at the appropriate landfill. 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. 3.7 LIGHT EMISSIONS AND VISUAL IMPACTS The 2013 EA described light emissions and visual conditions in the Airport Study Area and the light emissions and visual impacts the Approved Action would have caused. Because this Supplemental EA addresses only the light emissions and visual impacts that the Modified Action would cause, the section: describes the light emissions and visual impacts in the Airport Study Area as noted in the 2013 EA and, if necessary, updates that information; 3-37

67 summarizes the impacts on light emissions and visual impacts that the Approved Action would have caused as noted in the 2013 EA; and if necessary, describes any changes to those impacts that the Modified Action would cause Background The 2013 EA reported that the Approved Action would cause the following Light Emissions and Visual Impacts effects: temporary construction-related light emissions Methodology This Supplemental EA uses some of the same methodology that the 2013 EA used to determine how the Modified Action would affect Light Emissions and Visual Impacts. This subsection describes the methodology used in the 2013 EA, and this Supplemental EA. There is no Federal statutory or regulatory requirement for adverse effects resulting from light emissions or visual impacts. FAA Order E, Change 1, Section 12.2.a, requires the FAA to evaluate the extent to which any lighting associated with a proposed action would create an annoyance among people in the vicinity or interfere with their normal activities. Therefore, proposed lighting impacts were evaluated on a contextual basis in terms of potential to impair light-sensitive land uses and cause human annoyance. Order E, Change 1, Section 12.2b 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 help determine the extent of these impacts. For the 2013 EA, 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 association with the 2013 EA with nearby residents, government agencies, and the general public to identify any local concerns associated with the Approved Action. Additionally, the potential light emissions and visual impacts of the Approved Action included a qualitative assessment as a way to identify potential new effects that could annoy local residents. For this Supplemental EA, the potential light emissions and visual impacts of the Modified Action include only a qualitative assessment. This effort provided a way to identify potential new effects that could annoy local residents, such as lighting or glare on light-sensitive land uses or visual effects, such as the proposed hotel. 3-38

68 Threshold of Significance This Supplemental EA uses the same threshold of significance that the 2013 EA used to determine the magnitude of the light emissions and visual impacts of the Modified Action. For reader convenience, this subsection repeats the significance threshold. 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, requires the FAA consider to 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. Visual impacts resulting from constructing and operating an airport action include physical changes to the visually aesthetic qualities in the airport area, including landforms, vegetation, and water surfaces. Impacts may also include those resulting from actions which may have both beneficial and detrimental effects Affected Environment The 2013 EA provided a description of the light emissions and visual impacts of the Regional Study Area, which includes the Airport Study Area for the Modified Action. No changes in existing light or visual conditions have occurred since the publication of the 2013 EA. For reader convenience, a summary of the existing conditions is presented here. 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 Modified Action. The nearby residential area is currently obstructed from the Airport s light emissions by 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 and its facilities. There are no dramatic height differentials in landforms between the residential neighborhoods north of the Airport and the Airport Environmental Consequences The Modified Action would change some of the light emissions and visual impacts identified in the 2013 EA. Light Emissions and Visual Impacts that the Modified Action would not change. The Modified Action would not change the following light emissions and visual impacts noted in the 2013 EA: 3-39

69 Light Emissions construction light emissions would be temporary and restricted to the Airport Study Area; lighting for the new terminal would illuminate the interior and exterior of the terminal; new automobile parking areas would be lighted with directional and focused lighting for the safe movement of vehicles and pedestrians; and new access roads would include signage and roadway post lights resulting in light emissions, but the light emissions would be directional and focused on the roads. Visual Effects construction vehicles, such as cranes, would be temporary. Light Emissions and Visual Impacts that the Modified Action would change. The Modified Action would cause the following light emissions and visual impacts: Light Emissions addition of surface parking lots (i.e., two public lots, manager s lot, cell phone lot) would be lighted with directional and focused lighting for the safe movement of vehicles and pedestrians; and addition of hotel would be lighted with directional and focused lighting for the safe movement of pedestrians. The following paragraphs describe in more detail the changes to visual impacts that the Modified Action would cause. Addition of Surface Parking Lots Since the 2013 EA, the Modified Action would add two surface lots totaling 14.9 acres that would provide access from the east and west sides of the terminal, a 0.5-acre manager s lot providing access to airline station managers and other select terminal tenants, and a 0.5-acre cell phone lot providing access for persons waiting to pick up arriving passengers. Addition of a Hotel Since the 2013 EA, the Modified Action could add a hotel having a maximum height of 145 feet and totaling 0.45 acre. No new parking lots are associated with this hotel, as guests will have access to nearby parking areas. Residents in the Kenner neighborhood would experience limited light emissions during nighttime operations of the proposed new parking areas and hotel. However the proposed facilities new lighting would be focused and directional to avoid or minimize adverse effects on those residents. In addition, existing industrial and commercial land uses would block much of those light emissions. Further, existing vegetative buffers, especially those along Canal 14 between the 3-40

70 Kenner neighborhood and the Airport (discussed below) containing trees that are about 35 feet tall would further reduce the Modified Action s lighting and visual effects. 10 Distances from ground locations in the Kenner neighborhood, the height of the proposed hotel (up to 145 feet, which was used as a conservative assessment), and the height of the vegetative buffer (35-foot trees) were used to calculate the visual effects of the proposed hotel to the residents of this neighborhood (see Figure 3-6). Figure 3-6 VISIBLE HOTEL HEIGHT FROM KENNER NEIGHBORHOOD Source: RS&H, Distances from various locations within the Kenner neighborhood were used to determine how much of the proposed hotel would be visible to residents in the neighborhood at those locations during the day and how much hotel light would be visible to the residents during the night (see Table 3-10). The slant height in Figure 3-6 represents the height the proposed hotel would need to be to be visible to residents at each of those neighborhood locations. To calculate the slant height, or how high the hotel must be for a resident in the Kenner neighborhood at certain distances from the base of the hotel and the base of the 35-fot tall tree, the Pythagorean Theorem was used to determine the actual distance the resident is from the top of the hotel and the relationship of that distance to the distance the resident is behind the 35- foot tall tree. 10 Google Earth, Google Earth Ruler Tool,. Accessed May

71 First, the actual distance of the resident from the top of the hotel was calculated by solving the following equation, A 2 + B 2 = C 2, as shown below: A = hotel height (i.e., 145 feet); B = distance in feet, resident is from the base of the hotel; and C = the actual distance in feet that the resident is at the specified distance behind the 35-foot tree would be from the top of the hotel. If a resident was 1700 feet from the hotel, then; = 2,911,025 C = Square root of 2,911,025 or 1706 feet (i.e., the actual distance the resident standing behind the 35-foot tree is from the top of the hotel). Next, determine the slant height, the height the hotel must be for a resident to see the top of the hotel, by using the following equation: Slant Height = (35 Distance of Residence from Proposed Hotel) * Distance of Residence from Proposed Hotel (35 177) = ( slant height 1706) slant height = (35 177) x 1706 slant height = 377 feet In this example, the hotel would need to be 337 feet tall for this resident to see the structure. Table 3.10 shows how tall the hotel would need to be for residents in the Kenner neighborhood, at different distances from the proposed hotel, to see the structure. Distance of Residence from Proposed Hotel Table 3-10 VISIBILITY OF PROPOSED HOTEL FROM KENNER NEIGHBORHOOD Tree Height Distance of Tree from Residence Slant Height 1700 feet 35 feet 177 feet 337 feet No 1900 feet 35 feet 231 feet 289 feet No 3400 feet 35 feet 979 feet 122 feet Source: Google Earth Ruler, 2015; RS&H, Note: Distances should be used for approximation only. Hotel Visible from Residence? Yes, top 23 feet of 145-foot hotel would be visible. 3-42

72 Residents closest to the hotel, and therefore, closest to the vegetative buffer, would not see any of the proposed hotel. In fact, the proposed hotel would need to be approximately 192 feet taller to be visible to those residents. Additionally, these residents would not see construction equipment when that structure is being built. Conversely, Kenner residents farther from the proposed hotel (i.e., the residents between Veterans Memorial Boulevard and I-10) would be able to see the hotel if the hotel were 145 feet tall. The residents would only see the uppermost 23 feet (i.e., two floors) of the structure. These residents could see lit hotel rooms at night. However, given the distance of more than ½ mile from these residences to the hotel and the existing lighting in the areas adjacent to the neighborhood, it is not likely that a lit hotel room would constitute an annoyance. Additionally, these residents would see construction equipment during the construction of the hotel. However, the view of construction equipment would be temporary. If construction activities occur during nighttime hours, the Modified Action would require construction lighting. Lighting effects during nighttime hours would be temporary and restricted to the Airport Study Area. The previously discussed height of the vegetative buffer and industrial and commercial land uses would reduce lighting effects and glare on light-sensitive land uses in the Kenner neighborhood (approximately 1,500 feet north of the Modified Action). As a result, it is not anticipated that construction activities would cause highly annoying or disruptive, temporary, nighttime 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. Visual Impacts relocation of navigational aids (e.g., Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR), Remote Transmitter/Receiver (RTR), Low Level Windshear Alert System (LLWAS), etc.); demolition of Concourses B and C; and addition of a hotel of up to 145 feet in height north of the terminal. The following paragraphs describe in more detail the changes to visual impacts that the Modified Action would cause. Relocation of Navigation Aids Since the 2013 EA, optimal locations for the navigational aids have been determined. The ASR would be moved to the south side of the Airport, the relocation of the RTR would be to the south portion of the Airport, and the relocation of the LLWAS would be just northwest of the proposed terminal. These structures would cause a change to the current view shed; however, they are required on an airfield and are necessary for the safe and efficient operation of the Airport. Demolition of Concourses B and C Since the 2013 EA, the demolition of Concourses B and C and part of the existing east terminal is being proposed. Although the removal of these facilities would 3-43

73 change the Airport s viewshed, it is actually a benefit to the surrounding areas because doing so eliminates buildings from the the Airport that are no longer needed for airport operations. Addition of a Hotel The addition of a hotel, having a maximum height of 145 feet, or up to eight stories, would cause a visual change to the Airport s view shed. Specifically, the Kenner residential neighborhood would have limited visibility to the proposed new hotel. This is due to existing industrial and commercial land uses, vegetative buffer, and Canal 14 that would block much of the hotel. As previously mentioned, the vegetative buffer along Canal 14 between the Kenner neighborhood and the Airport contains trees with heights between 30 and 40 feet. 11 Additionally, there are currently two hotels within the Kenner residential neighborhood about the same height as the proposed hotel. The seven-story Sleep Inn New Orleans Airport Hotel is south of Interstate 10 and north of Veteran Boulevard. The Country Inn and Suites by Carlson Hotel is just east of Bainbridge Street and south of Veterans Boulevard and is approximately six stories high. In summary, although the Modified Action would add light emissions due to additional parking lots, a hotel and the relocated navigational aids, the changes are not expected to cause human annoyance. The lighting from parking lots and the hotel and the change in viewshed would be similar to that of the existing Airport area. In addition, current land uses and vegetation buffers would limit light exposure and visual changes to the nearby Kenner residential neighborhood. Additionally, the demolition of Concourses B and C and part of the existing east terminal could be considered a benefit to visual impacts as noted above. Therefore, the Modified Action would not significantly change the light emissions and visual impacts identified in the 2013 EA and, therefore, would not cause significant light emissions and visual impacts effects Mitigation or Best Management Practices The mitigation and BMPs identified in the 2013 EA remain valid for the Modified Action. For reader convenience, these mitigation or best management practices are repeated below. 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. As with the 2013 EA, the access to the new terminal from Interstate 10 would include constructing a visual and noise barrier wall along the Loyola Drive/Aberdeen Street right-of-way. That barrier wall would limit the effects of light emissions from roadway lamp posts, vehicular traffic, and other components of the Modified Action on the adjacent Kenner neighborhood. 11 Google Earth, Google Earth Ruler Tool,. Accessed May

74 Visual Impacts Measures could be implemented during the design and construction phases to minimize the terminal and hotel visual effects. This could include specific landscaping and architectural treatments, and decorative exterior coatings. Building designs and landscape architecture would complement the surrounding Airport environment. The Modified Action could 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 Modified Action. 3.8 NATURAL RESOURCES, ENERGY SUPPLY, AND SUSTAINABLE DESIGN The 2013 EA described Natural Resources, Energy Supply, and Sustainable Design in the Airport Study Area and the Natural Resources, Energy Supply, and Sustainable Design effects the Approved Action would have caused. Because this Supplemental EA addresses only the Natural Resources, Energy Supply, and Sustainable Design effects that the Modified Action would cause, the section: describes the natural resources, energy supply, and sustainable design in the Airport Study Area as noted in the 2013 EA and, if necessary, updates that information; summarizes the impacts on natural resources, energy supply, and sustainable design that the Approved Action would have caused as noted in the 2013 EA; and if necessary, describes any changes to those impacts that the Modified Action would cause Background The 2013 EA reported that the Approved Action would cause the following natural resource, energy supply, and sustainable design impacts: temporary increases in 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, and minor increases in aircraft fuel consumption due to longer taxi distances to the new northside terminal complex. 3-45

75 Methodology This Supplemental EA uses the same methodology that the 2013 EA used to determine how the Modified Action would affect natural resources, energy supply, and sustainable design. For reader convenience, this subsection summarizes that methodology. Natural Resources FAA Order E, Change 1, Appendix A, Section 13.2a, notes that in FAA NEPA documents, the use of natural resources, other than for fuel, needs 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 of the Order notes that such instances are rare. Fuel Supply Changes in the volumes of jet fuel or aviation fuel a project must be examined for projects involving changes in airside operations; however, the Modified Action does not change the number of aircraft operations. As a result, this Supplemental EA does not further discuss fuel the supply. Sustainable Design Various references discuss sustainable design and sustainable practices to reduce aviation-related demands on natural resource and energy supplies. Two of the most useful references FAA recognizes are: The Airports Cooperative Research Program Synthesis 10, Airport Sustainability Practices; and The Sustainable Aviation Guidance Alliance Database Threshold of Significance This Supplemental EA uses the same threshold of significance that the 2013 EA used to determine the magnitude of the Modified Action s effects on natural resources, energy supply, and sustainable design. For reader convenience, this subsection repeats the significance threshold. FAA Order E, Change 1, 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 supplies, it may be assumed a project would not significantly affect energy demands or natural resource supplies. 3-46

76 3.8.2 Affected Environment The 2013 EA provided a description of the natural resources, energy supply, and sustainable design in the Airport Study Area. No changes in that description have occurred since the publication of the 2013 EA. For reader convenience, a summary of the existing conditions is presented here. 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 (Entergy), 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. 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 subbase materials, and various metals associated with such maintenance. The operation of the existing terminal, which includes Concourses B and C and a part of the east terminal, is inefficient and unsustainable due to the following reasons: infrastructure, including mechanical systems, structural systems, passenger moving conveyance systems, and security systems, are beyond their useful lives 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 and facilities Environmental Consequences The Modified Action would change some of the natural Resource, energy supply, and sustainable design impacts identified in the 2013 EA. Natural Resources, Energy Supply, and Sustainable Design Impacts that the Modified Action would not change. The Modified Action would not change the following natural resource, energy supply, and sustainable design impacts noted in the 2013 EA: temporarily increases in 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; and 3-47

77 minor increases in aircraft fuel consumption due to longer taxi distances to the northside terminal complex. Natural Resources, Energy Supply, and Sustainable Design Impacts that the Modified Action would change. The Modified Action would cause the following Natural Resources, Energy Supply, and Sustainable Design impacts: increase in energy consumption and water consumption with the operation of a thirdparty, approximately 150-room hotel; increase in energy consumption to illuminate two public surface parking lots, a manager s parking lot, a cell phone parking lot, and increased taxi waiting parking lot; increase in electrical energy consumption and water consumption with the addition of an airfield lighting vault; increase in electrical energy consumption to operate the hydrant fueling system; increase in electrical energy consumption to operate a blue water disposal station; increase in natural gas and electrical energy consumption to operate the central utility plant; decrease in electrical energy consumption due reducing the northside parking garage from 480,000 ft 2 to 396,000 ft 2 ; and reduced electrical energy and water consumption with the demolition of Concourses B and C and part of the east terminal. The following paragraphs describe in more detail the changes to natural resources, energy supplies, and sustainable design impacts that the Modified Action would cause. Addition of Hotel A new, hotel is proposed north of the northside terminal. The hotel could potentially be 8 stories high, have up to approximately 150 rooms and cover an area of about 0.45 acre. Operation of this hotel would increase energy and water consumption at the Airport. A typical hotel in the United States uses an average of 14 kilowatt-hours (kwh) of electricity per square foot. 12 Table 3-11 shows the expected yearly electricity use for the proposed hotel. Table 3-11 HOTEL ELECTRICITY USAGE Building Average Electricity Use per Year (kwh) Hotel Square Footage Yearly Electricity Use (kwh) Hotel 14 20, ,000 Source: BEA, 2015; RS&H, BEA, E Source, Business Energy Advisor, accessed June

78 Based on Table 3-11, the electricity usage for the proposed hotel is 280,000 kwh per year. The local utility company, Entergy, is responsible for delivering electricity to the Airport. Entergy owns and operates power plants with approximately 30,000 megawatts of electric generating capacity. 13 (Entergy, 2015). With the amount of potential electricity produced per year by Entergy (i.e., 262,800,000 kwh), the hotel s overall yearly electricity use (280,000kWh) would be negligible (i.e., 0.1%). The water usage of a building is typically based on the water usage in gallons per day (gpd) and the square footage of the building. Table 3-12 shows the yearly water usage expected for the proposed hotel. Table 3-12 HOTEL WATER USE FACTORS Building Water Use per Day (gpd) Hotel Square Footage Water Use Factor (gpd/ft 2 ) Yearly Water Use Factor (water use factor*365 days) Hotel 0.08* 20,000 1, ,000 Source: LAX Master Plan Draft EIS/EIR, RS&H, Based on Table 3-12, the water usage for the proposed hotel is 584,000 gallons per year. Jefferson Parish has six water plants; the East Bank has four water plants and the West Bank has two water plants. Present rated production capacity for the East Bank is 87 million gallons of water per day and the West Bank rated production capacity is 44 million gallons per day, for a total of 131 million gallons per day or 47,850,000,000 gallons of water per year (Jefferson Parish, 2015). With the amount of water available per year in Jefferson Parish (i.e., 47,850,000,000 gallons), the hotel s overall water usage (i.e., 584,000) would be negligible (i.e., 1.22 x 10-5 %). Based on the above negligible percentage increases in energy and water consumption and the use of efficient and sustainable measures (i.e., use low-flow toilets, energy efficient lighting, high efficiency cooling and heating systems), the operation of the proposed hotel would not exceed regional energy or water supplies. Addition of Parking Lots There would be increased electrical energy consumption to power lighting for the addition of parking lots (i.e., two surface lots, manager s lot, cell phone lot, and taxi waiting lot) totaling acres. However, the use of energy efficient lighting fixtures in the lots to decrease energy consumption would reduce the Modified Action s demand on the regional power supplies. As a result, the Modified Action would not exceed those supplies. Addition of Hydrant Fueling System A new, third-party hydrant fuel system is proposed. Airlines serving the Airport would design, build, operate, and maintain the system. The hydrant system would be underground and provide fuel that is piped from the existing fuel storage facility to each 13 Entergy, Entergy, About Entergy, accessed June

79 of the aircraft gates at the northside terminal. It is assumed that the fuel pump system for each of the aircraft gates would be electric. The hydrant fuel system would cause a minor increase in the Airport s total electrical consumption but would not adversely affect the region s electrical power supply. Addition of Blue Water Disposal Station A new, acre, blue water (i.e., aircraft lavatory waste) disposal station would be built west of the intersection of Taxiways S and U. Lavatory disposal trucks would collect blue water from aircraft and dispose that waste at this station. The station could consist of a self-contained, below-grade station with a drain attachment to prevent spillage. The blue water would receive pretreatment prior to being discharged into the Airport s sanitary sewers. If needed, the blue water disposal system could utilize energy efficient, electrical pumps to convey water to the sewers. Therefore, the increase in energy needed to operate the blue water disposal station would be minor and would not burden the region s electrical supply. Addition of Central Utility Plant The central utility plant would provide utility connections for the operation of proposed facilities on the north side of the Airport and will occupy a 23,100 squarefoot building totaling 2.98 acres. The central utility plant will contain emergency generators, a diesel fuel system, a chilled water plant (chillers), and a heating plant (boilers). The diesel fuel system will consist of a diesel fuel fire pump and a 45,000-gallon diesel fuel storage tank. That system would only be used to operate the generators during emergency situations (e.g., central utility plant malfunction). Four, 900-ton, electric, centrifugal chillers using refrigerant HFC-134a would be used to cool the northside terminal. This chilled water system will utilize electric chillers, which are more energy efficient than either steam or gas chillers. The chillers will supply the terminal with water cooled to 44 F. Water from the terminal will return to the chillers at 56 F. Chiller pumps will be provided with variable speed motors to conserve energy. The natural gas-powered heating plant will serve the heating loads of the northside terminal building, as well as other equipment in the terminal. The heating plant will consist of condensing boilers rather than steam boilers. Hot water will be supplied to the terminal at a temperature of 180 F and will return from the terminal at 160 F. The heating system will use pumps with variable speed motors to conserve energy. Additionally, an in-line freeze protection circulating pump will heat coils when the outside temperature drops below 35 F to prevent freeze-ups. Both the chilled water plant and the heating plant will increase energy consumption; however, their high efficiency designs would ensure that the central utility plant would not strain regional natural gas or electrical supplies. Additionally, a Building Management System (BMS) control system will monitor miscellaneous alarms in the central utility plant, boilers, chillers, emergency generators, and fuel system. The alarms would be integrated with the BMS via industry standard integration protocol. For example, the BMS could monitor carbon monoxide (CO) levels of the boilers, shutdown equipment and 3-50

80 raise a critical alarm if elevated CO levels occur. The system could also monitor the refrigerant leak detection panel of the chillers, shutdown equipment, increase exhaust requirements and raise a critical alarm if a refrigerant leak arises. As explained in Section 3.1, Air Quality, the central utility plant will require permits from the LDEQ, Air Permits Division, since the U.S. EPA has delegated permitting responsibilities to the LDEQ. Permits will be required for the boilers, chillers, generators, diesel fuel storage tanks, and the diesel fuel fire pump at a minimum. Decrease in Size of Northside Parking Garage The sponsor has redesigned the parking garage that would serve the terminal. The redesign reduces the area of the garage from 480,000 ft 2 to 396,000 ft 2. As a result, it will provide parking for 2,089 vehicles instead of 4,000 vehicles. The reduced size would decrease the amount of electricity needed to operate the facility. Demolition of Concourses B and C The demolition of Concourses B and C, and part of the east terminal totaling 7.92 acres is proposed with the construction of the new northside terminal. Not only would this account for a decrease in energy consumption, it is possible that some of the debris would be used as fill or other purposes for the Modified Action. This would reduce demands on consumable products used to build the Modified Action. Summary Overall, the Modified Action would increase the natural resource and energy consumption noted in the 2013 EA. This is due to the addition of ancillary facilities that were not parts of the project the 2013 EA addressed (See Section 2.3, Added project components of this Supplemental EA). However, the building materials, natural resources and energy supplies needed for the Modified Action are not expected to exceed regional or local natural resource or energy supplies. Additionally, energy consumption would be reduced with the demolition of Concourses B and C and part of the east terminal. The smaller parking garage would reduce the Modified Action s building material requirements and construction equipment demands. Use of energy efficient building materials, construction methods and construction equipment and applying the mitigation and best management practices (BMPs) discussed below would promote sustainability. Therefore, the Modified Action would not significantly change the natural resources, energy supply, and sustainable design impacts identified in the 2013 EA and would cause significant natural resource, energy supply, and sustainable design impacts Mitigation or Best Management Practices The mitigation and BMPs identified in the 2013 EA remain valid for the Modified Action. For reader convenience, these mitigation or best management practices are repeated below. The Modified Action 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. 3-51

81 Additionally, the Airport Sponsor is responsible for ensuring that the central utility plant is covered under the appropriate permits. The Sponsor would do so before starting the Modified Action. 3.9 NOISE The 2013 EA described the existing noise environment in the Airport Study Area and the noise effects the Approved Action would have caused. Since this Supplemental EA addresses only the noise effects that the Modified Action would cause, this section: describes the noise in the Airport Study Area as noted in the 2013 EA and, if necessary, updates that information; summarizes the impacts on noise that the Approved Action would have caused as noted in the 2013 EA; and describes any changes to those impacts that the Modified Action would cause Background The 2013 EA reported that the Approved Action would cause noise increases along the residential corridor located next to Aberdeen Street. This noise increase would be a direct result of increased traffic that would be rerouted as a result of moving the terminal from the south side of the airfield to the north side of the airfield. In order to offset some of the anticipated noise increases, a noise barrier along Aberdeen Street was included as a component of the Approved Action in the 2013 EA. In addition, the 2013 EA indicated that construction activities would temporarily generate noise throughout the duration of construction activities. Traffic Noise As noted above, the Approved Action in the 2013 EA included the construction of noise barriers along the proposed four-lane entrance road adjacent to the Aberdeen Street right-of-way. The traffic noise analysis published in the 2013 EA indicated that traffic noise levels would remain below the threshold of significance for vehicular traffic (see Section below), provided the proposed noise barriers were installed. Construction Noise Construction of the Approved Action detailed in the 2013 EA would result in temporary increases in noise in the immediate vicinity where construction activities would occur. Based on the distance of the nearest residential land use from that area, which is separated by light industrial land uses, it was not anticipated that daytime construction would cause noise generation that would exceed any noise ordinance, expose individuals to excessive ground vibrations, or resulted in unacceptable ambient noise levels. Aircraft Noise 3-52

82 Readers should note that this section does not discuss aircraft noise any further. This is because, like the Approved Action, the Modified Action will not alter the aircraft operations discussed in the 2013 EA Methodology Since the on-airport, terminal roadway system has been modified, this Supplemental EA uses the same methodology that the 2013 EA used to determine how the Modified Action would affect noise. For reader convenience, this subsection summarizes that methodology. Traffic Noise Model The prediction of existing and future traffic noise levels for the Approved Action was performed using the Federal Highway Administration s (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. A total of 156 noise sensitive receptors was examined as part of the modelling effort in the 2013 EA. It was determined that no significant noise increase would occur as a result of implementing the Approved Action detailed in the 2013 EA. Roadways 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 at LOS C, which is 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. Two of the roadway segments, Veterans Memorial Boulevard and Aberdeen Street, were included in the noise analysis for the Approved Action. A 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-wide travel lanes. The entrance road would be aligned east of, and parallel to, Aberdeen Street. Aberdeen Street would be converted to a cul-de-sac north of 27th Street and would not support direct access to Veterans Memorial Boulevard. The proposed on Airport roadway alignment was examined for potential to result in additional impacts to the noise sensitive receptors previously analyzed in the TNM. The distance of the realigned roadway system to closest noise sensitive receptors was used to determine if the realigned roadway system would contribute to modelled traffic noise levels examined in the 2013 EA Threshold of Significance 3-53

83 This Supplemental EA uses the same threshold of significance for vehicular traffic that the 2013 EA used to determine the magnitude of the traffic noise impacts of the Modified Action. For reader convenience, this subsection repeats the significance threshold for vehicular traffic. Noise impacts are deemed significant only if noise-sensitive areas experience an increase of daynight-sound level (DNL) 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. For highway noise, the Louisiana Department of Transportation (LaDOTD) defines thresholds of significance based on the land-use Activity Category of a property (see Table 3-13). 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. When predicted traffic noise levels approach or exceed the FHWA s Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC), or when predicted future noise levels increase substantially from existing levels, the FHWA requires that noise abatement measures be considered. LaDOTD defines the word approach to mean within one db(a) of the FHWA NAC, thus the LaDOTD NAC are 1 db(a) lower, as shown in the table. If the NAC is exceeded, LaDOTD 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 Affected Environment The 2013 EA provided a description of the noise in the Airport Study Area. No changes in the existing conditions for noise have occurred since the publication of the 2013 EA. For reader convenience, a summary of the existing conditions are presented here. Traffic Noise 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 (db) on the A -weighted scale (dba). This computer modeled db range represents an equivalent continuous sound level over a period of one hour (Leq 1h). 3-54

84 Table 3-13 NOISE ABATEMENT CRITERIA Activity Category A B 2 C 2 D E 2 F Description of Activity Category 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. 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. Activity Leq(h) 1 expressed in db(a) FHWA NAC 57 (Exterior) 67 (Exterior) 67 (Exterior) 52 (Interior) 72 (Exterior) DOTD NAC 56 (Exterior) 66 (Exterior) 66 (Exterior) 51 (Interior) 71 (Exterior) G Undeveloped lands that are not permitted Source: DOTD, Prepared by: RS&H, 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 were used. 14 For the area encompassed in this analysis, a conservative estimate for ambient noise for a quiet suburban location was determined at 44 dba. This level was used as a floor for the TNM results [any modeled Leq(h) lower than 44 dba was replaced with this level. 14 Cavanaugh, William and Tocci, G. Environmental Noise: The Invisible Pollutant. USC Institute of Public Affairs, E2SC Volume 1 Number 1, Fall

85 3.9.3 Environmental Consequences The environment surrounding the Airport is urbanized and subject 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 of the Modified Action would change some of the noise impacts identified in the 2013 EA. Noise Impacts that the Modified Action would not change Aircraft-related noise would not change as a result of the Modified Action. This is because none of that Action s new or modified project components would influence factors that contribute to aircraft-related noise impacts. In addition to aircraft-related noise impacts, traffic-related noise effects would not change from the impacts disclosed in the 2013 EA. Traffic-related noise impacts would not change because the alignment of the new access roadway along Aberdeen Street where noise-sensitive receptors are located would not differ from the proposed alignment examined in the 2013 EA. Noise Impacts that the Modified Action would change Construction of the Modified Action would occur in an airport environment that operates 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. New and modified project components have the potential to change construction-related noise as described in the 2013 EA. Among the new or modified project components, the closest component would be approximately 850 feet from the closest noise sensitive receptors. Table 3-14 presents noise levels at noise sensitive receptors up 800 feet from equipment generating noise. Since construction noise would be temporary and the closest noise sensitive receptors are 850 feet away from the nearest construction activity, it is not anticipated that project-related construction noise would cause a significant noise impact Mitigation or Best Management Practices The mitigation and best management practices (BMPs) identified in the 2013 EA remain valid for the Modified Action. The 2013 EA indicated that BMPs for construction activities would be sufficient to ensure that a significant noise impact would not occur as a result of the Modified Action s construction or vehicular activities. 3-56

86 Table 3-14 CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS Equipment 50ft from Source (dba) 100ft from Source (dba) 200ft from Source (dba) 400ft from Source (dba) 800ft from Source (dba) Air Compressor Backhoe Ballast Equalizer Ballast Tamper Compactor Concrete Mixer Concrete Pump PCC Vibrator Crane, Derrick Crane, Mobile Dozer Generator Grader Impact Wrench Jack Hammer Loader Paver Pneumatic Tool Pump Rock Drill Roller Saw Scarifier Scraper Shovel Spike Driver Truck Source: EPA, 2014 Prepared by: RS&H, SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, AND CHILDREN S HEALTH AND SAFETY RISKS The 2013 EA described the socioeconomic, environmental justice, and children s health and safety risks in the Airport Study Area and the socioeconomic, environmental justice, and children s environmental health and safety risk effects the Approved Action would have caused. Since this Supplemental EA addresses only the socioeconomic, environmental justice, and children s environmental health and safety risk effects that the Modified Action would cause, the section: describes the socioeconomic, environmental justice, and children s environmental health and safety risks in the Airport Study Area as noted in the 2013 EA and, if necessary, updates that information; 3-57

87 summarizes the impacts on socioeconomic, environmental justice, and children s environmental health and safety risks that the Approved Action would have caused as noted in the 2013 EA; and if necessary, describes any changes to those impacts that the Modified Action would cause Background The 2013 EA reported that the Approved Action would cause the following socioeconomic, environmental justice, and children s environmental health and safety risk impacts: Socioeconomic Impacts: permanently alter traffic patterns in the area north of the Airport by creating an entrance road that would no longer make 27 th Street a thru street across Aberdeen Street. permanently increase Airport-related vehicular traffic on the north side of the Airport. Environmental Justice Impacts: temporary, construction-related effects to the surrounding area (e.g., noise, air quality, and construction traffic) permanently increase passenger vehicle and shuttle bus traffic in the neighborhoods north of the Airport. Children s Environmental Health and Safety Risks: No impact to children s environmental health and safety Methodology This Supplemental EA uses some of the same methodology that the 2013 EA used to determine how the Modified Action would affect socioeconomic, environmental justice, and children s environmental health and safety risks. This subsection summarizes that 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 3-58

88 A surface traffic analysis for the 2013 EA s future study years (2018 and 2023) was included in the 2013 EA. Because the Modified Action this supplemental EA analyzes would not significantly change the amount of airport-related vehicular traffic, this Supplemental EA does not re-analyze the surface traffic distribution in the Airport Study Area. To analyze the additional existing socioeconomic conditions (e.g., income, housing) in the Airport Study Area, this Supplemental EA uses 2010 U.S. Census data from Census Tracts 206 and 9800, which encompass the Airport Study Area. In addition, demographic data associated with other geographic areas that the Airport Study Area intersects were reviewed. Analysis of U.S. Census data compared the Airport Study Area s demographics to those of the City of Kenner, Jefferson Parish, and the City of New Orleans. 15 Environmental Justice As part of this Supplemental EA, 2010 U.S. Census data were compiled from Census Tracts 206, and 9800, which encompass the Airport Study Area. The Census and demographic data noted in this Section were also used to determine if the Modified Action would cause disproportionate, adverse effects on low-income or minority populations. 16 Children s Environmental Health and Safety Risks The distances between the Airport Study Area and schools, parks, or other resources that children may use were analyzed to determine potential environmental impacts of the Modified Action to children s environmental health and safety risks Thresholds of Significance This Supplemental EA uses the same thresholds of significance that the 2013 EA used to determine the magnitude of the socioeconomic, environmental justice, and children s environmental health and safety risk impacts of the Modified Action. For reader convenience, this subsection repeats the significance threshold. 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 Impacts The following factors are examples of issues considered to determine the intensity and context of a project s 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. 15 The City of New Orleans is included because the Airport property is owned by the City of New Orleans. 16 Ibid. 3-59

89 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, lowincome population, and minority population. The following paragraphs address each of those terms in the context of the regulatory methodologies used in this analysis. 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 Environmental Health and Safety Risks A project that would pose disproportionate health and safety risks to children may result in significant impacts Affected Environment The 2013 EA provided a description of the socioeconomic, environmental justice, and children s environmental health and safety risks in the Airport Study Area. No changes to that description are needed for this Supplemental EA. For reader convenience, a summary of the description from the 2013 EA is presented here. Socioeconomics With regards to traffic, the intersection of Bainbridge Street and Veterans Memorial Boulevard has a LOS of B Federal Aviation Administration, Order E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, Change 1, March 20, Level of Service (LOS) B indicates that the roadway has uncongested operations and represents good progressions. Some vehicles may be stopped during the red phase. 3-60

90 Table 3-15 summarizes the population trends between 2000 and 2010 in the Airport Study Area and at the City and Parish levels. The Airport Study Area and the surrounding political jurisdictions incurred a population decline between 2000 and The population in the Airport Study Area population declined about 15 percent between 2000 and 2010 primarily due to the effects of Hurricane Katrina. This decline correlates closely to the housing vacancy percentage in the Airport Study Area for that decade. Overall, the Airport Study Area has sustained adverse changes in population and housing that are greater than those of surrounding political jurisdictions but less than those the City of New Orleans endured. Table 3-15 POPULATION AND HOUSING DATA ( ) Location Total Population Population Change ( ) Area (square miles) Persons Per Square Mile Total Housing Units Vacant Housing Units (% of Total) Airport Study Area 4, % , % City of Kenner 66, % , , % Jefferson Parish 432, % , , % City of New 343, % , , % Orleans Source: 2000 and 2010 US Census SF1 and QuickFacts Environmental Justice Table 3-16 summarizes income, poverty, and employment levels in the Airport Study Area and at the City and Parish levels. In 2010, the City of Kenner ($48,567) and Jefferson Parish ($48,175) had median household income levels higher than the City of New Orleans and the Airport Study Area at $37,000 and $31,000 respectively. Table 3-16 also summarizes the income, percentage below poverty level, and employment information within the Airport Study Area and at the City and Parish level. In comparison to the surrounding political jurisdictions, the Airport Study Area (i.e., the Modified Action s affected area) has a significantly large minority population at 87 percent. Thus, the majority of the Airport Study Area population consists of minorities. For comparison, minority populations in areas near, but outside the Airport Study Area (e.g., the City of Kenner, Jefferson Parish), comprise less than 40 percent of the populations within the non-affected areas. Approximately 30 percent of the minority families in the Airport Study Area are living below the poverty level, which is greater than the surrounding political jurisdictions. 3-61

91 Table 3-16 INCOME, POVERTY, EMPLOYMENT, AND ETHNICITY DATA (2010) Location Percent of Percent of Median Population Population Unemployment Minority Household below in Labor Rate (non-white) Income Poverty Force Population Level Airport Study Area $31, % N/A* N/A* 87.3% City of Kenner $48, % 36, % 38.4% Jefferson Parish $48, % 225, % 37.1% City of New Orleans $37, % 150, % 67.0% * This information is not available for the Census Tracts within the Airport Study Area because the number of sample cases is too small. Source: U.S. Census American Community Survey (ACS) Estimates ending Children s Environmental Health and Safety Risks The closest school to the Airport Study Area is Our Lady of Perpetual Help Catholic School, located less than 0.7 mile 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 Airport Study Area. Lion s Playground is the closest recreational facility to the Airport Study Area. It is located between Airport Road and Williams Boulevard, outside the Airport Study Area Environmental Consequences The Modified Action would change some of the socioeconomic, environmental justice, and children s environmental health and safety risk impacts identified in the 2013 EA. Socioeconomic Impacts The Modified Action would not change the following socioeconomic impacts noted in the 2013 EA: proposed traffic patterns north of the Airport that were examined in the 2013 EA; and roadway LOS. The Modified Action would modify specific segments of the Approved Action s Terminal access roadway system initially described in the 2013 EA. Those modified segments occur entirely on airport property. Therefore, the Modified Action would not affect off-airport roadway LOS. 3-62

92 The Modified Action would change the following socioeconomic impacts: number of temporary construction jobs the Modified Action would generate; number of construction-related vehicles accessing roadways; and number of permanent employment opportunities at the Airport. The Modified Action s addition and modification of some project components as discussed in Chapter 2 of this Supplemental EA (e.g., new hotel, parking garage, demolition of Concourses B and C) would increase the number of temporary construction jobs in the Airport Study Area. The effect of this additional traffic would not reduce roadway LOSs in the Airport Study Area. This is because the new terminal and its associated parking facilities would not yet be built or functional. As a result, passenger traffic on the north side of the airfield would not occur at the same time considerable levels of construction traffic would use the Approved Action s Terminal access roadway system. After construction, the proposed hotel and central utility plant would not substantially increase employee trips. Overall, the Modified Action would decrease available parking spaces by approximately 416 spaces compared to the 2013 EA Approved Action, approximately a 9 percent decrease in parking. 19 The construction of an on-airport hotel could potentially offset this increase by eliminating trips created by people that would otherwise leave Airport property for lodging and re-enter the Approved Action s Terminal area. The central utility plant would be directly accessible via Bainbridge Street and would be the preferred method of access, since employees would not be required to access the plant via the main Airport entrance from Aberdeen Street. The Modified Action would not require relocating businesses or residents. Additionally, the Modified Action would not cause a shift in population changes or tax base. Environmental Justice Impacts The Modified Action would change the following environmental justice impacts: increase in temporary, construction-related effects to the surrounding area (e.g., noise, air quality, and construction traffic) increase in vehicular traffic in the neighborhoods north of the Airport. As described in the 2013 EA, construction-related effects would cause temporary air quality and noise impacts to the north side of the airport property. The additional improvements analyzed as part of this Modified Action (see Section 2.3 of this Supplemental EA) would increase the air pollutant and noise emissions in the area associated with construction activities (see Section 3.4 of this Supplemental EA). However, the use of best management practices during construction activities, as Sections and of this Supplemental EA describe would minimize potential impacts to the people north of the Airport. The demolition of portions of the east terminal and 19 This calculation includes changes to the available parking spaces as described in Chapter

93 Concourses B and C would also increase construction-related impacts. However, this portion of the Airport is surrounded by industrial and commercial impacts and would not cause disproportionately high and adverse effects to low-income or minority populations as defined in DOT Order (a), Appendix, sections 1.f and 1g. 20 As described in the socioeconomic section of this Supplemental EA, the Modified Action would increase the number of employees accessing the Airport via Aberdeen Street and Bainbridge Street due to the hotel and central utility plant. When taken into consideration with the impacts analyzed in the 2013 EA, this increase in traffic due to the Modified Action would not be significant. Additionally, as analyzed in the 2013 EA, the addition of a noise barrier on the east side of the Aberdeen Street entrance road to the Approved Action s Terminal would reduce any projectinduced traffic-related noise impacts to the surrounding neighborhoods. Children s Environmental Health and Safety Risks The Modified Action would not cause additional impacts to children s environmental health and safety risks than analyzed and described in the 2013 EA. The aspects of the Modified Action that differ from the Approved Action analyzed in the 2013 EA (e.g., development of a hotel, addition of a central utility plant, addition of glycol tanks) would occur on airport property, with the exception of the change in the level of improvements of off-airport roadways (i.e., Bainbridge Avenue). These aspects of the Modified Action would not result in the acquisition or disruption of communities within the Airport Study Area or significantly affect the environment in a manner that would indirectly affect the health and safety of children (e.g., air quality, noise, water quality) Mitigation or Best Management Practices The mitigation and best management practices (BMPs) identified in the 2013 EA remain valid for the Modified Action. For reader convenience, these mitigation or best management practices are repeated below. Socioeconomics Based on the results of the traffic operations analysis conducted for 2018 and 2023 projected traffic conditions, intersections near the Airport would need improvement. The following recommended improvements within the Airport Study Area are considered applicable to the Modified Action Recommended Improvements. Recommended improvements for 2018 include restriping the through lane to be right-turn-only lane on westbound Veterans Memorial Boulevard at Loyola Drive 2023 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

94 Loyola Drive at Veterans Memorial Boulevard; and (3) two through lanes and one rightturn-only lane for northbound Airport entrance road at Veterans Memorial Boulevard. Environmental Justice Based on the information in other chapters addressing air quality, hazardous materials, and noise, the Airport sponsor would implement a construction management plan to minimize projectrelated construction effects, including potential effects on low-income and minority populations. BMPs in the Modified Action s construction management plan would include: a construction traffic plan; a construction staging plan that includes control of hazardous materials; the use of noise baffling and low emissions construction equipment; the implementation of best management practices to minimize dust, runoff, and construction-related and light-emission impacts (see Section of this Supplemental EA); and asbestos abatement should be completed prior to demolition of the existing terminal and concourse structures. Children s Environmental Health and Safety Risks The 2013 EA did not include mitigation or best management practices to minimize children s environmental health and safety risk effects. Use of the BMPs noted above in the Environmental Justice discussion would ensure the Modified Action s demolition of Concourses B and C and a portion of the east terminal would minimize environmental health and safety risk impacts to students attending Our Lady of Perpetual Help Catholic School or other children WATER QUALITY The 2013 EA described water quality projects in the Airport Study Area and the water quality effects the Approved Action would have caused. Since this Supplemental EA addresses only the water quality effects that the Modified Action would cause, the section: describes the water quality in the Airport Study Area as noted in the 2013 EA and, if necessary, updates that information; summarizes the impacts on water quality that the Approved Action would have caused as noted in the 2013 EA; and if necessary, describes any changes to those impacts that the Modified Action would cause Background The 2013 EA reported that the Approved Action would result in an increase in impervious surface by 39.3 acres. 3-65

95 Methodology This Supplemental EA uses the same methodology that the 2013 EA used to determine how the Modified Action would affect water quality. For reader convenience, this subsection summarizes that 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 Supplemental EA have consulted (see Appendix C): 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 In addition, the NOAB has coordinated with local agencies regarding drainage and water quality issues (see Appendix C). The potential impacts to water quality was 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 3.2 of this Supplemental EA discusses project-related wetland effects Threshold of Significance This Supplemental EA uses the same threshold of significance that the 2013 EA used to determine the magnitude of the Modified Action s effects on water quality. For reader convenience, this subsection repeats the significance threshold. 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 Supplemental 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 Affected Environment The 2013 EA provided a description of water quality in the Airport Study Area. No changes in the existing conditions for water quality have occurred since the publication of the 2013 EA. For reader convenience, a summary of existing conditions are presented here. 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 3-66

96 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 3-7 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. 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. The SWPPP requires periodic airport-wide site analyses and updating of inventories of facilities. NOAB s staff and tenants, who commit to help prevent pollution, verify compliance with 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 Study Area Environmental Consequences The Modified Action would change some of the water quality impacts identified in the 2013 EA: the amount of impervious surface; the addition of a fuel hydrant system; new location for two glycol tanks and deicing pads; new location for the blue water disposal station; and new location for the stormwater pump station. The 2013 EA Approved Action would have added 39.3 total acres of impervious surface. Comparatively, the Modified Action would add about 76 total acres of impervious surface. Thus, the Modified Action s 36.7-acre addition would increase the Airport s total impervious area by about 4.5 percent. The USEPA, the DEQ, Jefferson Parish Water Department, and the City of Kenner Public Works Department have been notified of this proposed, minor addition. The final Supplemental EA will provide the agencies probable concurrence with that addition (see Appendix C). The NOAB s SWPPP contains preventative measures addressing fueling activities. The NOAB will update the SWPPP to include the proposed hydrant fueling system that airlines operating at the Airport will design, build, operate, and maintain. 3-67

97 Figure 3-7 CURRENT HYDROLOGIC BASIN DELINEATION AT THE AIRPORT Source: MSY Airport Drainage Report Executive Summary, 2013 The relocation of two glycol tanks and deicing pads are proposed under the Modified Action; however, current deicing levels would not change as a result of the Modified Action. Following a deicing event, glycol collection trucks will collect as much glycol-contaminated stormwater as possible, ensuring that it does not contaminate local water sources. Glycol-contaminated stormwater collected by the trucks will be disposed of in approved sanitary sewer drains and treated at the public water treatment plant receiving Airport runoff. Historically, the total annual volume of deicing fluid that the airlines and the operator use at the Airport ranges between 3,500 to 5,000 gallons. The NOAB will update its SWPP to include the new location of the two glycol tanks and deicing pads. The existing blue water disposal station, used to dispose of sanitary sewage pumped from aircraft, would be relocated under the Modified Action, but the functionality and capacity of received sanitary sewage would not change. Finally, proposed stormwater pump station near Taxiways A and G, used for drainage purposes, would be moved under the Modified Action to be closer to the Parish Line Canal, but the station s function or discharge volume would not change. The relocation of the pump station would more efficiently drain the Airport during precipitation events. 3-68

98 The Modified Action must comply with the Louisiana Pollution Elimination System (LPDES) Multi- Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharges discussed below. It would also require an LPDES permit for runoff during the Modified Action s construction. Implementation of the BMPs (see Section ), guidelines in the NOAB s current LPDES permit, and the expected construction permit would prevent significant water quality impacts. Presently, the NOAB maintains compliance with Federal environmental stormwater regulations primarily through the requirements outlined in the LPDES permit, which is scheduled for its fiveyear renewal in May This SWPPP outlines the details for stormwater pollution prevention. The SWPPP includes maintenance and operation of the deicing plan, including policies, procedures, type and annual quantities used by each airline or fixed base operator. Policies for blue water and fuel spills are also contained in the SWPPP. All stormwater runoff would be mitigated through appropriate engineers methodology and remediation, as well as any other actions required by local and state permitting conditions. The SWPPP also includes Quarterly Inspection Logs for each airline and tenant who uses the aprons or airfield. Annual required Environmental Training Logs are also maintained in the SWPPP. The NOAB s Environmental Engineer will continuously update the Logs when the NOAB implements the Modified Action. Upon transitioning to the new deicing location, the SWPPP will be updated with the new site map, and procedures. The blue water disposal station location will be also be updated in the SWPPP. Furthermore, each signatory airline must update its site-specific SWPPP, which is included in the appendix of the NOAB s SWPPP, upon a change in their leased areas. The SWPPP is a "living" document, constantly being supplemented, revised and updated. Although the location of the terminal is slightly changed from the location addressed in the 2013 EA, the LPDES permit will still be in effect, because it allows such changes under its compliance parameters Mitigation or Best Management Practices The mitigation and best management practices (BMPs) in the 2013 EA remain valid for the Modified Action. For reader convenience, these mitigation or BMPs are repeated 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 5-acre drainage area); sediment basins (for more than 5-acre 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 P-156, Temporary Air and 3-69

99 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 NOAB would require its construction contractor to submit, for approval, a 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 its 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 construction-related good housekeeping 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 may occur. 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 the LPDES permit is updated and proper procedures followed. As a result of the above measures, final project design and operation would incorporate stormwater management facilities and techniques to minimize water quality impacts CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The 2013 EA described the cumulative (i.e., past, present, and reasonably foreseeable) projects in the Airport Study Area and the cumulative effects the Approved Action would have caused. Since this Supplemental EA addresses only the cumulative effects that the Modified Action would cause, the section: describes the cumulative projects in the Airport Study Area as noted in the 2013 EA and, if necessary, updates that information; 3-70

100 summarizes the impacts on the cumulative impacts that the Approved Action would have caused as noted in the 2013 EA; and if necessary, describes any changes to those impacts that the Modified Action would cause Background The 2013 EA reported that the Approved Action would not cause significant cumulative impacts Methodology This Supplemental EA uses the same methodology that the 2013 EA used to determine the cumulative impacts of the Modified Action. For reader convenience, this subsection summarizes that methodology. 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 Airport Study Area during specific time frames (i.e., past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions 21 ), 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 due to a proposed action. To determine a proposed action s cumulative impacts, the incremental effects that action 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 the Modified Action that this Supplemental EA addresses, spatial and temporal boundaries were delineated to determine the areas and projects within those areas the Supplemental EA s cumulative analysis would address. The Airport Study Area boundaries delineate the analysis spatial boundaries. The temporal scope reflects different time periods relevant to conditions for past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. For this Supplemental EA: o Past actions include actions that occurred between 2010 and o Present actions reflect actions that are occurring in o Reasonably foreseeable actions are those actions expected to occur between 2015 and 2024 (5 years after the proposed construction is completed) FAA Order B, paragraph 9.q. defines reasonably foreseeable actions. 22 The 2013 EA used build-out + 5 years to define these future actions. 3-71

101 To determine those actions, various sources were examined, including the Airport website for onairport projects and the official websites for the City of Kenner, Jefferson Parish, and Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development for off-airport projects that may affect the same resources as the Modified Action. Since some reasonably foreseeable 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 Supplemental EA does not provide a detailed evaluation of the potential environmental impacts associated with those future projects Thresholds of Significance This Supplemental EA uses the same thresholds of significance that the 2013 EA used to determine the magnitude of the cumulative impacts due to the Modified Action. For reader convenience, this subsection repeats the thresholds. 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 Supplemental 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 the Modified Action would affect Affected Environment The existing conditions associated with cumulative projects in the Airport Study Area have changed since the publication of the 2013 EA. This is because the spatial area and temporal scope for this Supplemental EA differ from those the 2013 EA discussed. As a result, this Supplemental EA considers projects in the Airport Study Area, which is included in the Regional Study Area the 2013 EA analyzed. Additionally, the 2013 EA considered past projects as those that occurred between 2008 and 2012, present projects as those that occurred in 2013, and reasonably foreseeable projects as those that were planned to occur between 2014 and See Section for the temporal scope used in this Supplemental EA. The following provides an updated description of the cumulative projects for this Supplemental EA and identifies which projects differ from the cumulative analysis in the 2013 EA. Past Projects The following sections describe past action(s) that have occurred between 2010 and 2014 within the Airport Study Area. 3-72

102 On-airport Projects: The NOAB reported the following past actions: 23 Replacement of Aircraft Loading Bridges: Seventeen aircraft loading bridges were replaced. This project was included in the 2013 EA cumulative analysis. Construction of an Airfield Rescue and Firefighting Facility: The new ARFF facility was constructed west of the existing facility and included demolishing the DHL cargo hangar and apron. This project was included in the 2013 EA cumulative analysis. Construction of a Consolidated Rent-A-Car (CONRAC) Garage: The Garage includes a customer service building, a ready-return parking garage, new utility building and associated service area for the rental car companies to maintain their vehicles. The facility also includes concessions and is connected to the existing, Southside Terminal Complex via covered walkways. This project was included in the 2013 EA cumulative analysis. Expansion of Concourse D: Six gates were added to Concourse D. This project was included in the 2013 EA cumulative analysis. Improvements to the Exterior Terminal: 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). This project was included in the 2013 EA cumulative analysis. Installation of a New Airfield Lighting Vault: The new Airfield Lighting Vault serves the north side of the airfield, east of the existing General Aviation apron area. This project was included in the 2013 EA cumulative analysis. Improvements to the North Perimeter Road: The North Perimeter Road was rehabilitated and realigned. The project also included re-contouring nearby ditches. This project was included in the 2013 EA cumulative analysis. Improvements to the Levee: 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. This project was included in the 2013 EA cumulative analysis. Conversion of Runway 6-24: This project converted existing Runway 6-24 to Taxiway D. This included pavement rehabilitation, new lighting, and pavement markings. This project was included in the 2013 EA cumulative analysis. 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. This project was included in the 2013 EA cumulative analysis. Replacement of the Security Perimeter Fence: The NOAB replaced the security perimeter fence including all gates, barbed wire, razor wire, and automatic gates. The replacement fence is eight feet high with two additional feet of fence fabric buried in the ground for increased animal control. This project was considered a current project in the 2013 EA cumulative analysis. Since then, this project has been completed and is now considered a past project for this Supplemental EA. 23, Capital Improvement Projects, available at: Accessed June

103 Rehabilitation of the Airfield Electrical System: This project rehabilitated and improved the reliability of the airfield electrical system. The existing electrical duct banks were demolished and new electrical duct banks with associated circuit cabling were installed. The runway/taxiway edge lights, centerline lights, and runway touchdown zone lights were replaced. This project included the replacement and/or upgrade of airfield signage, replace and/or reconfiguration of wind cones, electrical vault improvements, new constant current regulators, and improvements to the airfield lighting control and monitoring system. This project was considered a current project in the 2013 EA cumulative analysis. Since then, this project has been completed and is now considered a past project for this Supplemental EA. The 2013 EA cumulative analysis also included the roof replacements, hurricane repairs, and Phase 4 of the interior terminal improvements as past projects. Those projects are not considered in this Supplemental EA because they are outside the time frame this document examines. Off-airport Projects: During the past five years, no off-airport projects have occurred within the Airport Study Area this Supplemental EA addresses. In addition, the past, off-airport projects included in the 2013 EA occurred outside the Airport Study Area this Supplemental EA examines. As a result this document does not address off-airport projects. Current Projects There are no current projects within the Airport Study Area. The 2013 EA included the replacement of the perimeter security fence and airfield electrical rehabilitation as current projects. As previously described, those projects have been completed and are included in the list of past projects for this Supplemental EA. The 2013 EA also included the Path to Progress, replacement of a lift station and force main, improvements to Veterans Boulevard, changes to the City of Kenner zoning, and improvements to pedestrian movement as current projects. Those projects have been completed and/or are outside of the Airport Study Area. Therefore, they are not included in this Supplemental EA. Reasonably Foreseeable Projects On-airport Projects: The following is a reasonably foreseeable project at the Airport: Rehabilitation of the Airport Cargo Road: This project includes rehabilitating and enhancing the roadway system in the cargo/general aviation area of the Airport to improve roadway efficiency and air cargo operations (see Figure 3-8). 24 [Note: This project was considered a current project as part of the 2013 EA. However, this Supplemental EA 24, Capital Improvement Projects, Projects in Design, available at: Accessed June

104 reclassifies the project as reasonably foreseeable because the NOAB reports the project is in the design phase and no physical construction has occurred. Figure 3-8 AIRPORT CARGO ROAD REHABILITATION Source: TMG Consulting, 2013 The 2013 EA included a discussion of long-term planning efforts that could be implemented in the future (e.g., light-rail transit, construction of a flyover). However, this Supplemental EA does not include those projects because they would occur outside the Airport Study Area the document examines Environmental Consequences The Modified Action would affect the following resources as described earlier in this chapter: air quality (section 3.1.3); construction (section 3.4.2); floodplains (section 3.5.3); hazardous materials, pollution prevention, and solid waste (section 3.6.3); light emissions and visual impacts (section 3.7.3); natural resources, energy supply, and sustainable design 3.8.3); noise (vehicular) (section 3.9.3); socioeconomic impacts and environmental justice (section ); and 3-75