Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Elizabeth Field - DEIS Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 2017-2021
Draft Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects ( FY 2017-2021 Airport Projects) FAA Al P: 3-36-0029-19-12 NYSDOT PIN : 0913.19 Elizabeth Field Airport Fishers Island Town of Southold Suffolk County, NY October 2016 Revised August 2017 � _ L y. CBS COMPANIES Draft Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects Q E C E Q V E Prepared for Elizabeth Field Airport LAUb 2 02017 Southold Town Planning Board By C&S Engineers, Inc. 499 Col. Eileen Collins Blvd. Syracuse, New York 13212 r October 2016 Revised August 2017 "The preparation of this document was financed in part through a planning grant from the Federal Aviation Administration as provided in the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended. The contents of this report reflect the analysis and finding of C&S Engineers,Inc.who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policy of the FAA. Acceptance of this report by the FAA does not in any way constitute a commitment on the part of the United States to participate in any development depicted therein nor does it indicate that the proposed development is environmentally acceptable with applicable Public Laws." This Environmental Assessment becomes a Federal document when evaluated,signed,and dated by the Responsible FAA Official. Responsible FAA Official: Date: TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1—PURPOSE AND NEED ......................................................................................1-1 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Airport Setting.............................................................................................................................1-1 1.3 Background..................................................................................................................................1-6 1.4 Purpose and Need.......................................................................................................................1-7 1.5 Description of Proposed Project...............................................................................................1-10 1.6 Requested Federal Action.........................................................................................................1-11 1.7 Proposed Time Frame...............................................................................................................1-12 CHAPTER 2—ALTERNATIVES...............................................................................................2-1 2.1 General........................................................................................................................................2-1 2.2 Description of Alternatives..........................................................................................................2-1 2.2.1 Alternative 1—No Action ....................................................................................................2-3 2.2.2 Alternative 2—Build Actions................................................................................................2-4 2.3 Evaluation Process ......................................................................................................................2-9 2.3.1 Step 1: Is the Alternative Reasonable?................................................................................2-9 2.3.2 Step 2:Alternatives Comparison..........................................................................................2-9 2.4 Conclusion (Identification of Preferred Alternative).................................................................2-13 CHAPTER 3—AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT..............................................................................3-1 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................3-1 3.2 Project Location...........................................................................................................................3-1 3.3 Soils .............................................................................................................................................3-1 3.4 Environmental Impact Categories...............................................................................................3-5 3.4.1 Air Quality and Climate Change...........................................................................................3-6 3.4.2 Biological Resources.............................................................................................................3-9 3.4.3 Coastal Resources..............................................................................................................3-22 3.4.4 Department of Transportation Act,Section 4(f)................................................................3-22 \" Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects I i 3.4.5 Farmlands...........................................................................................................................3-23 3.4.6 Hazardous Materials,Solid Waste,and Pollution Prevention ...........................................3-24 3.4.7 Historical,Architectural,Archeological, and Cultural Resources.......................................3-26 3.4.8 Land Use.............................................................................................................................3-28 3.4.9 Natural Resources and Energy Supply...............................................................................3-31 3.4.10 Noise and Noise Compatible Land Use...........................................................................3-32 3.4.11 Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice, and Children's Environmental Health and Safety Risks ........................................................................................................................................3-33 3.4.12 Visual Effects...................................................................................................................3-38 3.4.13 Water Resources.............................................................................................................3-40 3.4.14 Construction Impacts......................................................................................................3-48 CHAPTER 4—ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ................................................................4-1 4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................4-1 4.2 Air Quality....................................................................................................................................4-2 / Regulatory Setting 4-2 Significant Impact Threshold..............................................................................................................4-3 Methodology......................................................................................................................................4-4 Impacts.............................................................................................................................................4-11 Best Management Practices............................................................................................................4-11 4.3 Climate Change.........................................................................................................................4-12 RegulatorySetting............................................................................................................................4-12 Significant Impact Threshold............................................................................................................4-12 Methodology....................................................................................................................................4-12 Impacts.............................................................................................................................................4-13 Best Management Practices ............................................................................................................4-14 4.4 Biological Resources..................................................................................................................4-14 RegulatorySetting.............................................................:..............................................................4-14 Significant Impact Threshold............................................................................................................4-15 r� 1, Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects ii Methodology....................................................................................................................................4-15 Impacts.............................................................................................................................................4-16 Mitigation (T&E)...............................................................................................................................4-21 Mitigation (Migratory Birds)............................................................................................................4-23 Mitigation (Ecological Communities&Wildlife)..............................................................................4-26 4.5 Coastal Resources .....................................................................................................................4-27 RegulatorySetting............................................................................................................................4-27 Significant Impact Threshold............................................................................................................4-27 Methodology....................................................................................................................................4-28 Impacts.............................................................................................................................................4-33 4.6 Water Resources.......................................................................................................................4-34 4.6.1 Wetlands............................................................................................................................4-35 RegulatorySetting............................................................................................................................4-35 Significant Impact Threshold............................................................................................................4-36 Methodology....................................................................................................................................4-36 Impacts.............................................................................................................................................4-43 Mitigation.........................................................................................................................................4-44 4.6.2 Floodplains.........................................................................................................................4-45 RegulatorySetting............................................................................................................................4-45 Significant Impact Threshold............................................................................................................4-46 Methodology....................................................................................................................................4-46 Impacts.............................................................................................................................................4-48 Mitigation.........................................................................................................................................4-51 4.6.3 Surface Waters...................................................................................................................4-52 RegulatorySetting............................................................................................................................4-52 Significant Impact Threshold............................................................................................................4-52 Methodology....................................................................................................................................4-53 Impacts.............................................................................................................................................4-54 Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects iii �gpFFO�,r� {. Mitigation.........................................................................................................................................4-55 4.6.4 Groundwater......................................................................................................................4-56 RegulatorySetting............................................................................................................................4-56 Significant Impact Threshold............................................................................................................4-57 Methodology....................................................................................................................................4-57. Impacts.............................................................................................................................................4-57 Mitigation.........................................................................................................................................4-59 4.6.5 Wild and Scenic Rivers........................................................................................................4-60 4.7 Cumulative Impacts...................................................................................................................4-60 4.7.1 Summary of Projects...............................................................................................................4-60 4.7.2 Cumulative Impacts Comparison............................................................................................4-61 4.8 List of Anticipated Permits, Licenses,Approvals or Reviews....................................................4-62 4.9 Public Participation ...................................................................................................................4-63 i rEnvironmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects iv 3�g�FFO� - TABLES TABLE 1-1 Airport Facilities Summary......................•-----------------•------•--•--------------------------------------.1-5 TABLE 1-2 Project Time Frames----------------------------------------------------------------------•---•-••--•-•-•-----------..1-12 TABLE 2-1 Alternatives Evaluation Summary-------------------------------------------------------------------------------2-12 TABLE 3-1 Web Soil Survey Summary------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3-3 TABLE 3-2 Preliminary Scoping Agency List__________________________________________________________________________________3.5 TABLE 3-3 Federally-Listed Endangered and Threatened Species______________________________________________ 3-10 TABLE 3-4 State-Listed Endangered and Threatened Species_____________________________________________________3-12 TABLE 3-5 Population, Housing, & Economic Statistics_______________________________________________________________3-34 TABLE 3-6 Environmental Justice Populations____________________________________________________________________________3-36 TABLE 3-7 Project Areas Located in 100-Year Floodplain............................................................3-43 TABLE 3-8 Project Areas Located in Wetlands____________________________________________________________________________3.46 TABLE 4-1 Clean Air Act De Minimis Thresholds 4-4 TABLE 4-2 De Minimis Thresholds and Annual Stationary Source Emissions----------------------------------4-5 TABLE 4-3 De Minimis Thresholds and Construction Emissions by Year.........................................4-7 TABLE 4-4 De Minimis Thresholds and Total Emissions by Year.....................................................4-8 TABLE 4-5 De Minimis Thresholds and Total Criteria Pollutant Emissions by Year........................4-10 i " TABLE 4-6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Year___________________________________________________________________________ 4-13 TABLE 4-7 Vegetative Covertype Impacts__________________________________________________________________________________ 4-24 TABLE 4-8 Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) Consistency Review 4-29 TABLE 4-9 Federally Regulated Wetlands------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4-39 TABLE 4-10 State Regulated Freshwater Wetlands/Buffer Areas...................................................4-42 TABLE 4-11 State Regulated Tidal Wetlands/Buffer Areas.............................................................4-43 TABLE 4-12 Project Areas Located in 100-Year..............................................................................4-47 TABLE 4-13 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects....................................................................4-61 TABLE 4-14 Anticipated Permits and/or Approvals___ ____________________________________________________________________4-62 FIGURES FIGURE 1-1 Vicinity Map--------------------------------•------•---------•--•---.....------------------------------------------------...1-2 FIGURE 1-2 Airport Location Map................................••---•-•--•--•-•--•--•----------------......_.....................1-4 FIGURE 1-3 Preferred Alternative 1-13 FIGURE 2-1 Alternative 1—No Action 2-2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FIGURE 2-2 Alternative 2—Build Actions 2-8 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FIGURE 3-1 Airport Projects Map...................................................................................................3-2 FIGURE 3-2 Ecological Communities Map___________________________________________________________________________________ 3-21 (, Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects v i_ ( FIGURES (cont.) FIGURE 3-3 Landuse Map------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3-30 FIGURE 3-4 Surface Waters Map--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3-41 FIGURE 3-5 Floodplains Map------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3-44 FIGURE 3-6 Wetlands Map--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3-47 FIGURE 4-1 Federal Wetlands Map--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4-40 FIGURE 4-2 State Wetlands Map------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4-41 Appendices APPENDIX A Airport Capital Improvement Program APPENDIX B Airport Layout Plan APPENDIX C Obstruction Analysis APPENDIX D USDA MRCS Custom Soil Resource Report APPENDIX E Internet Research Documentation/Online Resources APPENDIX F Project Scoping and Agency Correspondence APPENDIX G Phase IA Archeological Investigation ~' APPENDIX H Wetlands and Waterways Delineation Report APPENDIX I Air Quality Analysis APPENDIX 1 Coastal Resource Documentation APPENDIX K Public Participation APPENDIX L List of Preparers Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects vi List of Abbreviations/Acronyms ACCRI Aviation Climate Change Research Initiative ACEIT Airport Construction Emissions Inventory Tool ACIP Airport Capital Improvement Program AIP Airport Improvement Program ALP Airport Layout Plan ACOE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers APIVIS Airport Pavement Management Study APUs Auxiliary Power Units Bc Beaches BGEPA Bald And Golden Eagle Protection Act Bm Bridgehampton Silt Loam, Graded BMP Best Management Practice CAA Clean Air Act CAF Consistency Assessment Form CATEX Documented Categorical Exclusion CBRA Coastal Barrier Resources Act CEA Critical Environmental Area CEQ Council On Environmental Quality CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, And Liability Information System CFR Code Of Federal Regulations CMP Coastal Management Program CO Carbon Monoxide CO2 Carbon Dioxide CORRACTS Corrective Action Report CRIS Cultural Resources Information System CuB Cut And Fill Land, Gently Sloping CuC Cut And Fill Land, Sloping CuE Cut And Fill Land, Steep CWA Clean Water.Act CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act DEQ Division of Environmental Quality DOI Department of Interior DOT Department of Transportation Du Dune Land EA Environmental Assessment ECL Environmental Conservation Law EIS Environmental Impact Statement EJ Environmental Justice EO Executive Order Es Escarpments ESA Endangered Species Act FAA Federal Aviation Administration List of Abbreviations/Acronyms (cont.) FAR Federal Aviation Regulation FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FFRMS Federal Flood Risk Management Standard FIFD Fishers Island Ferry District FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Maps FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act Fs Fill Land, Sandy g/HP-hr Grams Per Horsepower-Hour g/mi Grams Per Mile GAO General Accounting Office GHG Greenhouse Gas GSE Ground Support Equipment ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization IPaC USFWS Information, Planning And Conservation System LWRP Local Waterfront Revitalization Program MOVES Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NEPA National Environmental Policy Act Of 1969 NHL National Historic Landmarks NLEB Northern long-eared bat NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System MRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NRHP National Register Of Historic Places NYNHP New York Natural Heritage Program NYS New York State OB8 Elizabeth Field Airport OPRHP Office Of Parks, Recreation, And Historic Preservation PARTNER Partnership For Air Transportation Noise & Emissions Reduction PCI Pavement Condition Index PIB Plymouth Loamy Sand, 3 To 8 PM Particular Matter PM,o Particulate Matter RCRA Resources Conservation And Recovery Act RhB Riverhead And Haven Soils, Graded 0 To 8 Percent Slopes RpE Riverhead And Plymouth Very Bouldery Soils, 15 To 35 Percent SIP State Implementation Plan SO2 Sulfur Dioxide SPDES State Pollution Discharge Elimination System T&E Threatened & Endangered Species List of Abbreviations/Acronyms (conte) r Tm Tidal Marsh TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USDA United States Department Of Agriculture USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USFWS United States Fish And Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Survey W Water 6 i CHAPTER 1-PURPOSE AND NEED 1.1 Introduction This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969(NEPA).The purpose of this act is to ensure that all environmental,social, and economic factors have been taken into consideration during the development decision. This EA follows the guidelines and organizational structure recommended in Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, FAA Order 5050.46, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions, for preparation of an Environmental Assessment, and the FAA's 1050.1F Desk Reference,for the analysis of potential impacts. This EA evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed projects identified in the Elizabeth Field Airport (068) five-year Airport Capital Improvement Program (ACIP) (see Appendix A). The ACIP projects include several small, unrelated airport projects tentatively proposed for implementation in the period from 2017 to 2021 at the Elizabeth Field Airport(hereinafter referred to as "the Airport"). The proposed ACIP projects would normally be reviewed individually as minor projects that would fall under a documented categorical exclusion (CATEX). However, given the numerous environmental resources(i.e.,wetlands, biological resources,coastal resources,floodplains)that exist on and around the Airport, consistent with FAA's recommendation, the ACIP projects (collectively referred to as the "Proposed Project") have been grouped together within this EA in order to assess potential environmental impacts associated with (1) runway pavement rehabilitation, (2) mitigation of known critical obstructions to the navigable airspace around the airport and (3) landside improvements to terminal and general aviation facilities and their associated infrastructure. Specifically, the proposed project includes the following ACIP projects: (1) Runway 12-30 pavement rehabilitation, (2) Runway 7-25 pavement rehabilitation, (3) on-airport obstruction removal, (4) airport entrance road improvements, (5) terminal building construction and (6) private hangar development. 1.2 Airport Setting The Airport is located on Fishers Island, New York,a small island approximately nine miles long and a mile wide,that is situated at the eastern end of Long Island Sound (see Figure 1-1). Approximately two miles off the southeastern coast of Connecticut,across Fishers Island Sound,the island is governed by the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Fishers Island is predominantly a vacation community with approximately 300 full-time residents and a summer population of several thousand.The only scheduled ferry service to the island is provided by the Fishers Island Ferry District (FIFD) operating out of New London,Connecticut.Other than the ferry service from Connecticut,air taxi is the only other public access to the island. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 1-1 , -W 11IFFINIMIPFFOONVU .'1 tc ( � -' -'stonington !✓ _ i �r ` !•� a e Enders o��oPr F soulyo� } Mason island 411 \ P R Pt Sa i \ o � Eastern Point ��G � � ��igs .,�/� int FClgushy n Ram rem mom' I Island Pt:� Pine Mumford � 5 Legend C - , I>tJand Pt LOQ p1� / �lt% - _ _ _.,.f.__. ! �i Airport Property Line �- Source USGS Topographic Maps New London to ` &Plum Island OE E Pr �1 East Pt f , O s, ONor1h Brooks Fast de tJsrt►or 4t hocomount DumPling t Hnffln?"k Clay Cove Q` Pt i Is North Hill ' ,.(Jr.( o C? o► ure ld 5 west g( Harbor 15h Op Project Location `s i �tiC�;;-i-6 ' EYt v r'� ( Point U N O W 0 2500 5000 N` •' Feet 1 inch = 5,000 feet When printed at 11"x1 T Sibsr S E 0 0 C.� Date:6/13/2016 us •�.- •� N / o , a _ CBS Cl .n i T COMPANIESO . • 44 �, j Elizabeth Field £IIZB � 1 709 . / Airport ILI �' 4 Town of Southold Fishers Island, New York O 7 742 Vicinity Map Copyright©2013 National Geographic Scale: 1 inch = 1,500 feet Society, i-cubed 1 - 1 `T tJr I Copyright©2013 National Geographic Society,i-cubed Figure 1 The Airport is on the site of Fort Wright, a former military outpost on the island. The Town of Southold acquired the Airport from the United States government in 1959. The FIFD established in 1947, is responsible for operation of the airport through an enabling act with the Town. The Airport is a public- use, general aviation airport that primarily serves the aviation needs of island residents and several local air taxi companies, having no scheduled commercial service or reliever service for any of the air carrier facilities in the surrounding area. The Airport occupies approximately 191 acres at the western end of Fishers Island (see Figure 1-2). The Airport has two paved asphalt runways.The primary runway,designated 12-30, is 2,345 feet long and 100 feet wide, with an east-west orientation. Runway 7-25, the secondary runway, is 1,802 feet long and 75 feet wide. Landside facilities include a 2,100 sq. ft. converted hangar building that is currently leased by one tenant who operates three businesses out of the building, one of which is a bicycle rental and repair shop; a paved itinerant aircraft apron covering an area of approximately 30,000 sq.ft.;a 260 sq.ft. airfield electrical building located west of the 37,500 sq. ft. based aircraft tie-down apron; an approximately 500 sq. ft. building that is currently leased by the islands only propane delivery company for truck and spare tank storage; and a paved auto parking lot located west of the bike shop with space for approximately 30 cars. The only taxiway on the airfield is a 180-foot by 25-foot wide access taxiway connecting the 37,500 sq. ft. based aircraft tie-down apron to Runway 7-25. The Airport currently has no terminal building, aircraft hangar storage, or airfield access control. � 1 a Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 1-3 , 27 ti IF 1 `� _ J 3�OF SO UIyo . mum y Q t � � � tit• ��-�`�: ♦ 41 � `- inA r _ l %� Legend ♦ • ti' _ Y l �/ 4 Airport Property Line 37 ` fSource. USGS Topographic Maps New London `♦�♦ IS I�I ��` ' ` • �' //f * &Plum Island OE E i C 14 / 10 %♦ est l f� r• Rarbor a StonyF fishers ' Beach! r•.:; • ;, �, .� , Goose ': ' _l) � Island F 4. Has ti � •` , �. 2 iy� r SOW Be! kCove ; \ o U 8 �V.�►RD ;ti •' ' COU a /� •�; 17 �<< ✓ \ � 0 500 1000 - tiM. __ - - x.� ,•` i r _ Feet a `r, -• _ �. sa 1 �. W*TFR 1 inch = 1,000 feet When printed at 11"x17" •' f �'`� /". Date 6/13/2016 E O . U ii - CBS t'---,.�,,,,,, Elizabeth Field / --- Point ND } -^--� SA ' w so Elizabeth Field ' .....(� __._--- �C�► t ''— ., Airport Town of Southold U Fishers Island, New York O Airport Location Map U Figure 1 -2 Copyright©2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed 04 "V Table 1-1 provides a summary of the existing airport facilities. Table 1-1:Airport Facilities Summary AirportGeneral Name and Identifier Elizabeth Field Airport—Fishers Island (0138) Ownership Town of Southold, NY Airport Field Elevation 9' Airport Reference Code A-1 and B-I Airport Reference Point Lat.41° 15'07.684" N; Long.72°01' 53.890"W Runway Data 12-30 7-25 Length 2,345' 1,802' Width 100' 75' Pavement Strength (lbs.) SW-12,500 SW-12,500 Type&Condition Asphalt—Poor Asphalt—Poor Wind Coverage(10 knots) 75.5% 81.3% Gradient 0.12% 0.16% FAR Part 77 Approach Slope 20:1 20:1 Safety Area Condition In Compliance In Compliance Marking Basic Basic Lighting MIRL MIRL Airport Leased Bldg. (Bike Shop) 2,100 SF Lighted Windcone Leased Bldg. (Propane Co.) 500 SF -- Airfield Electrical Bldg. 260 SF PAPI, REIL,Obstruction Lighting Apron Auto Parking Itinerant Aircraft Apron 30,000 SF 12,000 SF Based Aircraft Apron 37,500 SF (7 tie-downs) (30 spaces) Source:C&S Engineers, Inc. In 2012, New York was severely affected by Hurricane Sandy, particularly New York City, its suburbs, and Long Island.The Airport was one of many places that experienced damage as a result of Hurricane Sandy. Hurricane Sandy struck the Island on October 29, 2012. Conditions reported during the storm by local residents include sea swells of over 8 feet, with the entire airfield inundated with rain and seawater. Immediately afterthe storm surge had diminished,the airfield pavements were observed to have upwards of 4 inches of standing water. Representatives from C&S Engineers, Inc. (C&S) visited the Airport on December 4,2012, in order to assess the conditions of the airfield. Based on C&S's site visit,storm damage at the Airport included storm debris (sand, cobble, other debris up to 6 feet tall in some areas) on the airfield; damage to the seawall, NAVAIDS (i.e., airfield edge lights, guidance signs, runway end indicator lights [REIL], precision approach path indicator [PAPI] system) and obstruction lights. At this time, the Airport is open to traffic however, not for nighttime operations as the airfield lighting, signage and NAVAIDs remain out of service. The FIFD is in the process of repairing the airfield to a fully functioning state. The Airport has received funding from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 1-5 � address the repairs and is currently in the process of contracting the work, with an expected completion of December 2016. 1.3 Background In 2008, C&S began an airport layout plan (ALP) update study in order to determine the extent, type and schedule of development needed to accommodate existing needs and future aviation demand at the Airport. The ALP Update Summary Report was completed in August 2011 and was approved by FAA on October 12, 2011. Appendix B includes a copy of FAA's October 2011 correspondence approving the ALP Update Summary Report and a copy of the current approved airport layout plan (ALP). The following information was included within the ALP Update Summary Report and is relevant to the projects being evaluated within this EA: ■ The ALP update study included completion of an obstruction analysis(see Appendix C—Airspace Plan and Obstruction data) identifying obstructions to the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 20:1 Approach and 7:1 Transitional surfaces. The analysis also included obstructions to the 20:1 runway end siting surface (RESS). The 2011 obstruction analysis was based upon an obstruction survey completed for the Airport in October 2008. On-airport obstruction removal is one of the ACIP projects assessed in this EA. Specifically,this EA evaluates impacts associated with the removal of obstructions identified on the Airspace Plan (see Appendix C) as: 12-1 (phragmites), 30-3(brush),7-1(rock and dirt berm), 7-2 (phragmites), 7-4(group of trees on dirt mound), 7-6 (brush) and 7-7 (brush). It should be noted that although additional obstructions were proposed for relocation, lowering, lighting, or removal in the 2011 obstruction analysis,they were not included within the proposed obstruction removal project assessed within this EA for the following reasons: some of the reported obstructions no longer exist or have since been mitigated through other means (i.e., previously lit),conditions have significantly changed(primarily as a result of Hurricane Sandy)such that it is not possible to determine the extent of mitigation that would be required, or the previously identified obstructions warrant additional studies to assess feasibility and impacts(see Appendix C — Obstruction Data Table). Specifically, because of the damage sustained during Hurricane Sandy, the existing sea walls have been altered in terms of their composition and whether they would still be constituted as an obstruction to the Part 77 surfaces. Because of the unverified status of the present sea walls and the environmentally-sensitive nature of the project site, it is recommended that the sea walls be removed from consideration under this EA and a separate obstruction evaluation and subsequent environmental analysis be performed to adequately determine the status of the sea walls and, if necessary, complete any studies or analysis that may be necessary to identify proper mitigation alternatives. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 1-6 o`OgUf FO(KCo 4s - • The 2011 ALP update indicated that the 2,100 sq. ft. converted hangar building was, in 2011, serving as the 'terminal building' for the Airport. The ALP update further stated that the converted hangar building was undergoing renovations to provide a pilot lounge and administrative office space for the airport; penetrated the transitional surface to Runway 7-25 by 5.7 feet; and was in relatively poor condition. The 2011 ALP update also identified the relocation of the 'terminal building' as one of the landside facility requirements for the 20-year planning period. It should be noted that renovations to the converted hangar building were not completed and the building does not currently serve as a terminal building for the Airport. As previously mentioned,the converted hangar building is currently leased by one tenant who operates three businesses out of the building. The Airport continues to have no terminal building; however,construction of a new terminal building is one of the projects evaluated within this EA. ■ Discussions with airport management and pilots was completed as part of the ALP update in order to identify their key issues or concerns. Some of the issues identified included runway cracking and asphalt pavement in lieu of gravel for the existing airport (emergency) access road. Rehabilitation of runway pavement and improvements to the airport entrance road are projects that are included within this EA. 1.4 Purpose and Need The proposed project is intended to (1) rehabilitate runways to maintain pavement conditions, (2) enhance safety and efficiency of aircraft operations at the airport by addressing FAR Part 77 obstructions located on airport property and (3) improve terminal and general aviation facilities and their associated infrastructure to accommodate existing and future based aircraft demands. The justification or need for each of the ACIP Projects is discussed below. Runway Rehabilitation (Runway 12-30 and Runway 7-25) Runway pavement condition plays a key role in the safe operations of aircrafts maneuvering on them; poor runway pavement condition can cause runway excursions. Failure to address runway pavement deficiencies can damage aircrafts and put lives at risk. Last sealed in 2011, the existing runway pavements at the Airport are exhibiting full-depth cracking, localized raveling, and failed pavement joints. The previous runway crack repair and sealing project, completed in 2010(Phase 1)and 2011(Phase 11),addressed partial depth cracking and included application of an asphalt rejuvenator to the entire length of both runways. In accordance with Table 3-8 of the Airport Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 1-7 VOFRR* Improvement Program (AIP)Handbook', the minimum useful life of asphalt seal coating and joint sealant is three years. Based upon the age of the existingjoint sealant(i.e.,greater than five years)and the current level of pavement deficiencies,extensive pavement rehabilitation is necessary to maintain safe operations at the airport. Although a formal Airport Pavement Management Study (APMS) has not been conducted it is anticipated that, based on the present pavement condition, an estimated Pavement Condition Index (PCI) rating would be less than 50 (i.e., poor/very poor). The PCI is a numerical indicator that reflects the structural integrity and surface operational condition of a pavement. PCI values range from 0 to 100, where 0 indicates a failed pavement and 100 is a new pavement. PCI values below 55 are considered "poor" and PCI values below 40 are considered "very poor." The Runway 12-30 and Runway 7-25 pavement rehabilitation projects are shown on the approved ALP (see Appendix B) and as discussed above will enhance safety at the airport. Obstruction Removal An obstruction is any object that, upon evaluation, is Horizontal Surface 20:1 conical Surface determined to be required to be removed or properly 7:1 Transitional Surface Approach Surface marked, lighted, and identified on aeronautical publications so that it may be easily recognized by AW aircraft navigating through the airspace.The FAA, in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 14, Part 77, j Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace (FAR Part 77), has t 1501J established standards for determining obstructions to navigable airspace, and their effect on the safe and Runway efficient use of airspace. The regulation defines a Primary Surface system of imaginary surfaces (primary, approach, gRunway transitional, horizontal, and conical) designed to FAR Part 77 Imaging l Surfaces protect the critical airspaces around an airport and allow for the safe operation of aircraft to and from the airport. These imaginary surfaces are fixed and their dimensions are based on the type of approaches at the airport. 'FAA Order 5100.38D Airport Improvement Handbook,Page 3-10;Effective September 30,2014.Available at: http//www.faa gov/airports/aip/aip handbook/media/AIP-Handbook-Order-5100-38D.pdf Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 1-8 WOW Currently the Airport is in non-compliance with FAR Part 77 20:1 Approach and 7:1 Transitional surfaces. Removal or modification of these obstructions is necessary to meet FAR Part 77 approach and transitional requirements and to increase the overall safety of operations at the Airport. If obstructions are not mitigated, the Airport will remain in noncompliance with federal regulations for maintaining FAR Part 77 surfaces clear of obstructions. Landside Development Entrance Road (including stub access drive) Improvements: Airfield safety includes security concerns along with the safe travels of airport users into and through the Airport.The existing airport entrance road is the only connection from the public roadways to the Airport. This entrance road is of original construction and has deteriorated and exceeded its useful design life, with multiple locations of rutted and weathered asphalt pavement. The stub access drive consists of gravel and has areas of rutting and uneven driving surfaces, resulting in poor riding conditions and making it difficult to maintain. As mentioned previously, improvements to this road was one of the key airport issues identified by airport management and pilots during ALP update study discussions. Additionally, the Airport is currently not staffed to monitor activity, which allows for unrestricted access onto the airfield by pedestrians and vehicles. Therefore, the entrance road improvements project will consider installation of a localized access control system with a controlled entry/exit system (such as a fence or gate across the stub access drive with a proxy card and call box system) which will allow the Airport to monitor activity. A localized access control system will enhance security on the airfield and reduce inadvertent entry onto active airfield pavements. Entrance roadway improvements will provide for safer and more efficient access for airport users and the public by providing a safe, drivable surface that provides clear access to the GA facilities. Terminal Building Construction: Currently there is no space within the Airport property for pilots or users of the Airport. Any airport inquiries or operational concerns must be addressed at the FIFD Operations Building, located approximately 0.3 miles from the Airport. Having dedicated general aviation space on the Airport will improve the passenger and general aviation operator experience by providing shelter and amenities. Private Hangar Development:A frequent user of the Airport has expressed interest in developing hangar space on the Airport to store his aircraft and one other.The Airport currently has no hangar space to offer airport users. Private development of hangar space will correct hangar space deficiencies on the airfield and promote increased general aviation activity. In addition,the Airport is looking for revenue-generating opportunities to help maintain assets on the airfield (i.e., pavements, lighting, markings) and sustain the overall level of safety at the airport. A new private hangar will provide much-needed revenue to the FIFD Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 1-9 to offset airfield maintenance costs and provides opportunity for airport maintenance staff to procure airfield mowing and plowing equipment. 1.5 Description of Proposed Project The proposed project rehabilitates runway pavement, removes known (FAR Part 77) obstructions to the navigable airspace around the Airport and improves terminal and general aviation facilities and their associated infrastructure. Figure 1-3 identifies the limits of proposed project areas. It should be noted that the project areas identified on the report figures included as part of this EA generally include a buffer thereby incorporating a conservative project area larger than the actual acreage to be disturbed during construction. The proposed project includes the following: Runway Rehabilitation ■ Rehabilitate Runway 12-30 pavement (2,345 feet long x 100 feet wide); project includes 10 ft. of paved shoulder and approximately 15,725 sq. ft. of RW 7-25 pavement ■ Rehabilitate portions of Runway 7-25 pavement(1,302 feet long x 75 feet wide); project includes 10 ft. of paved shoulder ■ Includes new pavement markings ■ No airfield lighting replacements will be performed On-Airport Obstruction Removal ■ Removal (clearing and grubbing) of approximately 0.91 acres of vegetation (phragmites, brush, trees) ■ Grading approximately 0.41 acres of turf (dirt berm/mound); grading in this area will include removal of approximately 200 cubic yards of excavated material (soil);following soil removal,top soil, seeding with native seed mix and mulching within grading limits will be completed Landside Development Airport Entrance Road Improvements ■ Rehabilitate airport entrance road pavement (375 feet long x 25 feet wide) ■ Reconstruct stub access drive (132 feet long x 15 feet wide) ■ Installation of controlled entry/exit system (fence/gate) across stub access drive (200 sq. ft.) Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 1-10 XFax WOW Terminal Building Construction ■ Removal (clearing and grubbing) of approximately 0.026 acres of trees (successional northern hardwoods) ■ Site work (including extending utilities) involves excavating/grading approximately 17,120 sq. ft. (-0.39 acres) of cleared land and maintained (mowed) lawn and removal of approximately 200 cubic yards of excavated material ■ Construction of a 300-sq. ft., single-story terminal building; following building construction, top soil, seeding and mulching within grading limits will be completed. Private Hangar Development • Removal (clearing and grubbing) of approximately 2.80 acres of trees (successional northern hardwoods) ■ Site work(including extending utilities) includes excavating/grading approximately 170,000 sq.ft. (-3.9 acres) of cleared land and maintained (mowed) lawn and removal of approximately 15,000 cubic yards of excavated material ■ Construction of an 11,250-sq. ft. hangar building; taxilane (900 feet long x 25 feet wide); and vehicular access drive (165 feet long x 15 feet wide); following construction,top soil, seeding and mulching within grading limits will be completed. 1.6 Requested Federal Action The requested federal action with regard to the proposed project includes funding approval and/or airport layout plan approval for proposed ACIP projects associated with runway pavement rehabilitation, obstruction removal,and landside development.The FAA action to provide funding for the proposed ACIP projects and/or to approve updates or changes to the airport layout plan is subject to compliance with the NEPA. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 1-11 � * 1 1.7 Proposed Time Frame Table 1-2 presents the time frames that are anticipated for completing the proposed project, however, these time frames may vary depending on the availability of federal funding. Table 1-2: Project Time frames ProposedFiscal Year . . Runway 12-30 Rehabilitation (design) 2017 On-Airport Obstruction Removal (design) Terminal Building(design) On-Airport Obstruction Removal (construction) 2018 Airport Entrance Road Improvements(design) Private Hangar Development(construction) 2019 Airport Entrance Road Improvements(construction) 2020 Runway 12-30 Rehabilitation (construction) 2021 Runway 7-25 Rehabilitation (design) Terminal Building(construction) 2022 Runway 7-25 Rehabilitation (construction) Source:C&S Engineers,Inc. As shown above,the design and construction phases for each of the proposed ACIP projects is tentatively planned within the five year (2017-2021) ACIP implementation period, with the exception of the construction phase of the Runway 7-25 rehabilitation project;this phase is tentatively planned for 2022. The following chapters of the EA will include developing and evaluating alternatives to address the purpose and need, discussing the affected environment, and analyzing potential environmental impacts associated with development of a preferred alternative. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 1-12 � r•u: %pF SOOT �courm ,* Legend Airport Property Line Project Areas Runway 12-30 Rehabilitation Runway 7-25 Rehabilitation Obstruction Mitigation Amp ovemort ents anca Road 1 Terminal Building Construction ig Private Hangar Development X � E / Private Hangar Development m t,, Project Area=3.9 ac Entrance Improvements E Project Area=0.27 ac ai 0 a i rnObstruction Removal ,y Project Area=0.34 ac Ida N s 0 250 500 Terminal Building Construction Feet S Project Area=0.39 ac o !_ Runway 12-30 Rehabilitation 1 Inch = 500 feet Project Area=6.3 ac Obstruction Removal When printed at 11"x17' Project Area=0.16 ac Date' 9/15/2016 E o Obstruction Removal LLJ Project Area=0.89 ac Runway 7-25 Rehabilitation • d as Project Area=2.5 ac nCBS -' a s COMPANIES u� ,12 W Elizabeth Field a Airport Town of Southold Atlantic Oce i Fishers Island, New York 0 LL Alternative 2 Preferred Alternative a � � Figure 1 -3 O CHAPTER 2-ALTERNATIVES 2.1 General The Council on Environmental Quality(CEQ) regulations for implementing the NEPA state that alternatives are the heart of the environmental process.z Those regulations, as outlined in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.), Parts 1500 to 1508 and subsequently, FAA Orders 1050.1F and 5050.46, require that the federal decision-makers, (i.e., the FAA), perform the following tasks: ■ Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives ("reasonable" meaning alternatives that are practicable or feasible from a technical, economical, and rational standpoint), including alternatives not within the jurisdiction of the federal agency. For alternatives that were eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons for their having been eliminated. ■ Dedicate substantial treatment to each alternative considered in detail, including the No-Action Alternative, so that reviewers may evaluate their comparative merits. ■ Identify the sponsor's Proposed Alternative. This section describes the range of alternatives developed as part of the EA. For alternatives considered but eliminated from further study, the EA will briefly explain why they were eliminated. A screening analysis was conducted on the remaining alternatives in order to select the sponsor's preferred alternative. If an alternative is evaluated and found not to meet the stated purpose and need, it will be dismissed from further consideration.The no-action alternative will be advanced through the alternatives analysis as a basis of comparison against which the potential impacts of the other alternatives can be evaluated in accordance with CEQ regulations (Title 40 CFR 1502.14(d)). 2.2 Description of Alternatives This section includes a description of each project alternative(s). Figure 2-1 depicts the no-action alternative for the proposed project. Since each of the proposed airport projects are unrelated, alternatives were evaluated for each ACIP project individually. Figure 2-2 is the sponsor's preferred alternative and identifies project area limits for each of the proposed ACIP projects. 'Title 40 C.F.R.,Section 1502.14,Alternatives Including the Proposed Action. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 2-1 s OF SOOToIo. �' rOUHrI Legend Airport Property Line Atlantic Ocean .• a � �C&S Delineated Wetlands C&S Delineated Wetlands y 100-ft Buffer y NYSDEC Wetlands NYSDEC Wetlands 100-ft Buffer -+►� �_� \ �_ Tidal Wetlands-SM (Coastal Shoals, Bars and Mudflats) Tidal Wetlands 300-ft Buffer NWI (Federal)Wetlands 500-year Floodzone r, mi ;. �, � 0o 100-year Floodzone -----.,_; '----- /moi �- . 0 250 goo �. Mlliiiiiiiiiiil Feet W 1 inch = 500 feet -0� When printed at 11"x17" i' Date. 8/30/2016 ca— S Elizabeth Field `\ Airport Town of Southold _. _-- Atlantic Ocean Fishers Island, New York Alternative 1 No Action of uSGS to. - S S10">20 crosoft.-Co.rporat on Figure 2- 1 G 2.2.1 Alternative 1—No Action In accordance with the CEQ regulations (40 CFR § 1502.14(d), a No-Action Alternative is included (see Figure 2-1). For this alternative, the Airport would remain as it is today with poor runway pavement conditions, known hazards to the airport and local community associated with existing obstructions to Runway 12-30 and 7-25 airspace, and no terminal or general aviation facilities to accommodate existing and future aircraft demands. The No-Action alternative does not meet the purpose and need for the project, however, it provides a basis of comparison for the assessment of future conditions/impacts. 2.2.1-1 Rehabilitation of Runway 12-30 Pavement—No Action Under the No Action alternative, Runway 12-30 pavement would remain in its present condition. Besides not meeting the purpose and need of maintaining runway pavement conditions, if no action is taken,the pavement will further deteriorate and future maintenance efforts by the FIFD will not be sufficient to keep the runway in a safe and fully operable condition. 2.2.1-2 Rehabilitation of Runway 7-25 Pavement—No Action Under the No Action alternative, Runway 7-25 pavement would remain in its present condition. Besides not meeting the purpose and need of maintaining runway pavement conditions, if no action is taken, the pavement will further deteriorate future maintenance efforts by the FIFD will not be sufficient to keep the runway in a safe and fully operable condition. 2.2.1-3 On-Airport Obstruction Removal—No Action Besides not meeting the purpose and need of enhancing safety and efficiency of aircraft operations at the Airport by addressing FAR Part 77 obstructions located on airport property, if no action is taken,the safety hazards will remain and the threshold for each runway end may need to be displaced to provide proper clearance for landing aircraft in order to meet standards for the existing approaches at the airport. 2.2.1-4 Airport Entrance Road Improvements—No Action Besides not meeting the purpose and need of improving Airport infrastructure in order to accommodate existing and future based aircraft demands, if no action is taken, the condition of the entrance road will further deteriorate and significant maintenance efforts will be required which will restrict vehicular traffic access to the Airport. In addition, no access control system (i.e.,fence or gate)will be installed under this scenario and the sponsor will continue to be unable to monitor activity or reduce inadvertent entry onto active airfield pavements. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 2-3 2.2.1-5 Terminal Building Construction—No Action Besides not meeting the purpose and need of improving terminal and general aviation facilities in order to accommodate existing and future based aircraft demands,if no action is taken,the Airport will continue to have insufficient space on the airfield for pilots or users of the Airport to address airport inquiries or operational concerns and passengers and general aviation operators will continue to have no on-airport shelter or amenities available to them. 2.2.1-6 Private Hangar Development—No Action Besides not meeting the purpose and need of improving terminal and general aviation facilities in order to accommodate existing and future based aircraft demands, if no action is taken, the Airport will restrict tenant occupancy, reduce activity, and lose a revenue-generating opportunity that would help maintain assets on the airfield. 2.2.2 Alternative 2—Build Actions This section introduces each build alternative and explains how it meets the basic purpose and need for each ACIP project.Some of the proposed ACIP projects had only one practical build alternative.A detailed environmental analysis for those alternatives determined to be reasonable and feasible is provided in Chapter 4(Environmental Consequences)of this EA.The alternatives considered as part of this EA attempt to avoid and/or minimize impacts to socioeconomic and environmental features and other sensitive receptors. Runway Rehabilitation 2.2.2-1 Rehabilitation of Runway 12-30 Pavement Pavement rehabilitation of the full runway length (2,345 ft.), full runway width (100 ft.), including 10 ft. of existing paved shoulders, and approximately 15,725 sq. ft. of Runway 7-25 pavement to accommodate profile adjustments; for a total project area of approximately 273,675 sq. ft. ('6.3 acres). 2.2.2-2 Rehabilitation of Runway 7-25 Pavement Pavement rehabilitation of partial lengths of Runway 7-25 (1,302 ft.),full runway width (75 ft.), including 10 ft. of existing paved shoulders; for a total project area of approximately 110,500 sq. ft. (-2.5 acres). Rehabilitation to correct Runway 12-30 and Runway 7-25 pavement deficiencies would include milling the top two inches of asphalt pavement, performing full depth pavement repairs to address cracking, filling remaining cracks, and paving a minimum two-inch asphalt overlay. This project would also include new pavement markings. No airfield lighting replacements will be performed as part of this project. Environmental Assessment for Fi%e-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 2-4 ���gUFFOIKCoG Obstruction Removal 2.2.2-3 On-Airport Obstruction Removal Removal or mitigation of existing obstructions that are penetrating the FAR Part 77 20:1 Approach and 7:1 Transitional surfaces. In order to achieve compliance with FAR Part 77 regulations, mitigation for this project would include complete or partial removal of turf and vegetative (invasive species, bushes,trees) obstructions; specifically excavating or regrading turf (dirt berm/mound) areas that are not located in environmentally sensitive areas or otherwise lighted, and trimming or excavating vegetative areas that penetrate or are within 10 feet of the critical aeronautical surfaces. This includes removing up to approximately 0.91 acres of vegetation (i.e., phragmites, brush, trees) and grading up to approximately 0.41 acres of turf (i.e., dirt berm/mound) resulting in the removal of approximately 200 cubic yards of excavated material. Following removal of excavated material, project areas will be restored with native seed mix (see Figure 2-2). It should be noted that the obstruction mitigation project areas identified on Figure 2-2 include a buffer that surrounds obstructions that were identified by the obstruction survey(see Appendix C) at a specific runway end,thereby incorporating a conservative study area larger than the actual acreage to be removed or disturbed during construction. For example, the size (i.e., project limits) of the proposed obstruction removal project area at the Runway 7 end is identified as 0.89 acres (see Figure 3-1 and Figure 3-2), however,this project area includes a buffer that surrounds five individual obstructions (i.e., 7-1 (rock/dirt berm), 7-2 (phragmites), 7-4 (group of trees), 7-6 (brush), 7-7 (brush)) that were identified within the obstruction survey. Therefore, although the project area at the Runway 7 end is identified as 0.89 acres, vegetation removal proposed within this project area includes clearing and grubbing approximately, 0.41 acres of successional shrubland (see Figure 3-2). landside Development 2.2.2-4 Airport Entrance Road Improvements Pavement rehabilitation of the existing airport entrance road would include milling portions of the existing asphalt roadway and paving a minimum two-inch asphalt overlay. This alternative would also include reconstruction of the existing gravel stub access drive that terminates at the itinerant apron. In addition, improvements may include installation of a controlled entry/exit system, such as a fence or gate across the stub access drive. The existing main entrance road is 25 ft. wide and approximately 475 ft. in length. The limits of work for the airport entrance road would initiate at Whistler Avenue and extend approximately 375 ft. toward the south. Total project area for rehabilitation of the airport entrance road (9,375 sq. ft.), reconstruction of the stub access drive (1,980 square feet), and installation of fence/gate (200 sq. ft.) is approximately 11,555 sq. ft. (^'0.27 acres). Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 2-5 �SuffO(K oGs 2 2.2.2-5A Terminal Building Construction(Adjacent to Electrical Vault) Construction of a single-story public use terminal building located primarily within a previously disturbed area of maintained (mowed) turf adjacent to the existing 260 sq. ft. airfield electrical vault building (see Figure 2-2), where it would be situated at an elevation that would make the site less prone to flooding and provide a better viewshed of the airfield. Additionally, as a means to minimize the overall area of disturbance,the Airport would utilize the exiting access road and vehicular parking area to serve the new terminal building. The new terminal building would be finished with lounge space, office area, restroom, and would have heat (combustion of fuel oil), potable water, public restrooms, and public space for displays and amenities such as vending machines. Electric service for the new building will be extended from the adjacent airfield electrical building. The building will likely be constructed of block walls and have an approximate footprint of 300 sq. ft. to accommodate users of the airfield. Terminal building construction would include removal of approximately 0.026 acres of trees (i.e. successional northern hardwoods). Total project area (including building construction, site work, and utility installation) would be approximately 17,120 sq.ft. (-0.39 acres)and would include removal of approximately 200 cubic yards of excavated material. 2.2.2-5B Terminal Building Construction(Renovate Existing Airport Building) Renovation of the existing 2,100 sq. ft. converted hangar building located on airport property, adjacent to the paved itinerant aircraft apron. This building is currently leased by one tenant who operates three businesses out of the building. 2.2-6A Private Hangar Development(Adjacent to Existing Access Road) Construction of a single-story hangar building (including foundation, drainage system, and new utility service)with an approximate footprint of 11,250 sq.ft. (150 ft. x 75 ft.).The hangar will likely consist of a prefabricated metal housing with concrete footings, slab-on-grade foundation, and a paved parking area (11,500 sq. ft.) located at the front of the building. The hangar will be located near or adjacent to the existing airport entrance road and situated at an elevation that would make the site less prone to flooding (see Figure 2-2). A new taxilane (-900 ft. x 25 ft.) will also be constructed as part of this project in order to provide access between the new hangar and the existing tie-down apron and a new vehicular access drive ('165 ft. x 15 ft.) will be constructed adjacent to the main airport entrance road. Hangar site development would also include removal (clearing/grubbing) of approximately 2.80 acres of trees (i.e. successional northern hardwoods). Total project area (including construction, site work, and utility installation) would be approximately 170,000 sq. ft. (-3.9 acres) and would include removal of up to approximately 15,000 cubic yards of excavated material. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 2-6 � _.o`�SUFFO(KcoG s� 2.2.2-613 Private Hangar Development(Adjacent to Existing Tie-Down Apron) Construction of a single-story hangar building (including foundation, drainage system, and new utility service)with an approximate footprint of 11,250 square feet(150 ft.x 75 ft.).The hangar will likely consist of a prefabricated metal housing with concrete footings and slab-on-grade foundation and will be located near or adjacent to the existing tie-down apron (see Figure 2-2). Hangar site development would include excavating/grading up to approximately 40,000 sq.ft. (^'0.92 acres) of soil and/or vegetation and removal of up to approximately 1,000 cubic yards of excavated material. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 2-7 au 'k a � ; , r � r + r .'., evelopment Private Hangar D Alternate Location Adjacent to Existing Apron _ a=0.92 � Protect Are ac �0r ... y...... ... _ t o , Legend 1 9 f � Airport Property L p rt P p ert y me Project t c Areas L • " � �:::::i i i :: ::.::: :: ::.. `*- Runway 12-30 Rehabilitation- g Alterna ive 2 2 2-1 . - _ k 0 t r Runway 7-25 Rehabilitation- .- Alternative�s = y Alt 222-2 e .... .. Areas OMitigation Alternative 2 2 2-3 Airport Entrance Road Improvements Alternative 2 2 2-4 ` -Terminal Budding Construction- :: Alternative 2 2 2-5A Terminal Budding Construction- �� l 2016 Microsoft Corporation � ✓ i ti _�+ +- ~$ Alternative 2 2.2-5B t L 1 Private Hangar Development- Alternative 2 2 2-6A Private Hangar Development- ` / Alternative 2.2 2-6B A t I a n t i c O c e ' Resources F�:�C&S Delineated Wetlands a r ,- C&S Delineated Wetlands 100-ft / Buffer Private Hangar Development + r'r / Entrance Improvements `, / Project Area=3.9 ac °1 Tidal Wetlands-SM Coastal Shoals, f V Project Area=0.27 ac e / a 1' Bars and Mudflats) • O Tidal Wetlands 300-ft Buffer Obstruction Removal Existing Project Area 0.34 ac 1„ 2,100 SF Bldg(Bike Shop) i NYSDEC Wetlands = — I / NYSDEC Wetlands 100-ft Buffer - JJ NWI(Federal)Wetlands _7 500-year Floodzone �" ` — Terminal Building Construction Project Area=0.39 ac 100-year Floodzone h 0 250 500 Runway 12-30 Rehabilitation Feet ti Project Area=6.3 ac Feet �_•-- - -._ ;fj1 inch = 500 feet Obstruction Removal Project Area=0.16 ac �`;l When printed at 11"x17" Date 9/15/2016 Obstruction Remo f - 1 � vat � % Project Area=0.89 ac Runway 7-25 Rehabilitation Project Area=2.5 ac CBSr U12 -__—^�. —_-— f+ r i /` 1 Elizabeth Field _ Airport �- Town of Southold o Allan ;sic Ocean Fishers Island, New York ` Alternative 2 Build Actions � ,�. Figure 2-2 ,� Image courtesy o USGS Ear tar Geographies S 2016 f,icrosoft Corporation o`�SUFFO[,rCOG. � x 2.3 Evaluation Process For the alternatives evaluation, a two-step process was used. The alternatives that meet the criteria in the first step of the evaluation process then proceed to the second step. Alternatives that are not eliminated from the second step will be retained for further evaluation in Chapter 4 (Environmental Consequences).The two-step evaluation process is outlined below and summarized in Table 2-1. 2.3.1 Step 1: Is the Alternative Reasonable? The first step of the evaluation involves determining if the alternatives are reasonable. An alternative is considered reasonable if it meets the purpose and need for the proposed project. The purpose of the project is to (1) rehabilitate runways to maintain pavement conditions, (2) enhance safety and efficiency of aircraft operations at the airport by addressing FAR Part 77 obstructions located on airport property, and (3) improve terminal and general aviation facilities and their associated infrastructure to accommodate existing and future based aircraft demands. Therefore, for an alternative to continue to the second step in the evaluation process, it had to address the existing pavement deficiencies, bring the airport into compliance with federal regulations, and accommodate existing and future based aircraft demands, as well as fulfill grant assurances. Based on the results of the Step 1 evaluation, the No-Action Alternative (Alternative 1: 2.2.1-1 through 2.2.1-6) does not address poor runway pavement conditions, existing safety deficiencies associated with obstructions to the navigable airspace, or terminal and general aviation facility and infrastructure needs and therefore does not meet the purpose and need of the proposed project. However, to fulfill CEQ requirements the No-Action Alternative proceeded to Step 2 of the evaluation process. 2.3.2 Step 2: Alternatives Comparison The second step involves a comparison of the reasonable alternatives to identify issues and provide a clear basis for choice among the options.The alternatives are compared using the following factors: ■ Cost ■ Environmental impacts ■ Operational performance ■ Implementation feasibility Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 2-9 ho��ylFFOtKcoGs o©� ti z. Comparative Costs The evaluation of comparative costs for each alternative involved an analysis of the probable construction costs. Current unit costs for construction of the proposed projects were prepared. This consisted of reviewing recent bids of contracts awarded in New York under the FAA Airport Improvement Program (AIP) and preparation of an opinion of probable costs based upon the consultant's knowledge of contractors and construction material suppliers. Those alternatives that cost less were considered to be more feasible than those that had a higher construction cost. Environmental Impacts This part of the evaluation focused on environmental impact categories that may be affected by the proposed project. The potential areas of impact were identified through initial project scoping and correspondence with environmental agencies and are discussed in further detail in Chapter 3 (Affected Environment) and Chapter 4 (Environmental Consequences). In this step of the screening process, alternatives with fewer impacts to the environment were generally considered more feasible than those with more impacts. Operational Performance This part of the evaluation focused on the ability of each alternative to maintain the current operational capabilities of the airport. Alternatives that maintain adequate runway length to accommodate the critical design airplane, clear the runway approaches, provide long-term protection of the approaches, maintain pavement conditions or improve terminal and general aviation facilities and their infrastructure were considered more feasible than those that could not. Implementation Feasibility This part of the evaluation answers the question: What is the likelihood that this alternative will be implemented? Each alternative is rated on its feasibility considering both quantitative and qualitative factors. These include factors such as constructability, the degree of environmental impacts, and the sponsor's willingness to bear the development cost (along with funding from the FAA). Based on the results of Step 2 of the evaluation (see Table 2-1): ■ Alternative 2.2.2-513(Terminal Building Construction—Renovate Existing Airport Building)was not considered feasible for the following reasons:The converted hangar building is in poor condition, is located in an area that is known to flood, currently penetrates the transitional surface to RW 7- 25 and is currently leased by one tenant who operates three businesses out of the building. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 2-10 , ■ Alternative 2.2.2-66(Private Hangar Development—Adjacent to Existing Tie-Down Apron)was not considered feasible since construction of the hangar building in this location is within the 100- year floodplain.According to the Desk Reference, in order to comply with Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, 42 Federal Register 26951, and DOT Order 5650.2, Floodplain Management and Protection, all FAA actions must avoid floodplains if a practicable alternative exists. Construction of the hangar building adjacent to the airport entrance road (preferred alternative 2.2.2-6A)would be outside of the 100-year floodplain(as was requested by the private developer) and is considered a practicable alternative. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 2-11 Alternative 1— Alternative 2—Build Action No Action Criteria s � � o H � •--I N � N N � M > i ct C > u1 � V1 j lD � �^ � f0 O F— Step 1:Reasonable Meets Purpose and Table 2-1 Alternatives Evaluation Summary No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Need? Comparative Costs ®® $0.80 ®®®®® ' .95 (millions) Wetlands,Federal and State- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Freshwater(acres) Freshwater wetland 0 0 0 0.005 0 0 0 0 / buffer(acres) Tidal Wetland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tidal wetland 0�®®® 0 0 0 0 buffer(acres) In . .... . No ®®® No No ® No Yes Operational ®®®®®®®® Yes Performance Implementation ®®®®®®®® No Feasibility Yes' Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Source:C&S Engineers,Inc. 'No-Action Alternatives will be evaluated throughout the EA for comparison purposes with other alternatives Evaluate Environmental Consequences? for Program 2-12 CS coMvaNiEs' 2.4 Conclusion (Identification of Preferred Alternative) Based on the alternatives evaluation summary, conversations with FAA and the sponsor, the sponsor's preferred alternative (hereinafter referred to as Alternative 2), includes the following proposed airport projects: ■ Runway 12-30 Pavement Rehabilitation ■ Runway 7-25 Pavement Rehabilitation ■ Airport Entrance Road Improvements ■ On-Airport Obstruction Removal ■ Terminal Building Construction (adjacent to existing airfield electrical building) ■ Private Hangar Development (adjacent to airport entrance road) Each of the projects identified above met the purpose and need for the Airport (i.e., maintain pavement conditions, remove obstructions, provide facilities to accommodate existing and future based aircraft demand), maintain current operational capabilities of the Airport and were determined to be feasible. Although Alternative 2 (Build Action) has been selected as the sponsor's preferred alternative, in order to provide an environmental baseline for comparison purposes, Alternative 1 (No Action) will also be evaluated throughout this document. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 2-13 CHAPTER 3—AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.1 Introduction As required by FAA Order 1050.1F and FAA Order 5050.4B, this chapter describes the existing environmental conditions (i.e., environmental resources) within the study area to establish the baseline condition from which the impacts of the Proposed Action ("proposed project") and No Action alternatives will be determined. In addition, FAA's 1050.1F Desk Reference (Desk Reference) was used as a guide to applicable special purpose laws and assisted in the integration of these laws and NEPA to the fullest extent possible. The study area can vary based on the impact category being analyzed and includes areas directly or indirectly affected by the proposed project. For purposes of this report,the study area, unless indicated otherwise, refers to the entire Airport property. The proposed project area conservatively identifies the limits of the proposed project within which construction activities would take place. 3.2 Project Location The proposed project areas are located entirely within the boundary of Airport property. The Airport is situated at the western end of Fishers Island and is surrounded by the Atlantic Ocean to the south (Block Island Sound) and west (Fishers Island Sound). All of the proposed project areas are located on the western half of the Airport property.As previously mentioned,the proposed project includes six unrelated airport development projects resulting in eight distinct project areas: (1) at the existing Runway 12 end; (2) at the existing Runway 7 end; (3) at the existing Runway 30 end; (4) within Runway 12-30 pavement; (5)within Runway 7-25 pavement;(6)within the existing airport entrance road/stub access drive;(7)along the west side of the existing airport entrance road and (8) along the north side of the existing tie-down apron, extending east toward the existing converted hangar building. As shown on Figure 3-1, the limits of each of the project areas are color coded based on the airport development project with which they are associated. 3.3 Soils Soil surveys provide a general characterization of the types and depths of soils that are found in an area. A review of the Custom Soil Resource Report for Suffolk County, New York prepared by the United States Department of Agriculture(USDA)Natural Resources Conservation Service(NRCS)indicated that soil types within the study area vary (see Appendix D, USDA NRCS Custom Soil Resource Report for Suffolk County, New York, May 19, 2016). According to the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the study area includes thirteen (13) soil units. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 3-1 ��oF sotl ar do �o • e� Legend 9y� ® Airport Property Line Project Areas Runway 12-30 Rehabilitation Runway 7-25 Rehabilitation Obstruction Mitigation Airport Entrance Road Improvements y ,F Ir o ® Terminal Building Construction Private Hangar Development i x Private Hangar Development E Project Area=3.9 ac Entrance Improvements Project Area=0.27 ac o >� rnObstruction Removal -A u� Project Area=0.34 N U a 0 250 500 Terminal Building Construction Project Area=0.39 ac %iiiiiiiiiFeet L o Runway 12-30 Rehabilitation I Project Area=6.3 ac 1 inch = 500 feet Obstruction Removal When printed at 11"x17" E Project Area=0.16 ac Date 9/15/2016 0 '= Obstruction RemovalLU W Project Area=0.89 ac 0 Runway 7-25 Rehabilitation Q Project Area=2.5 ac a Rs U rid �. - r r COMPANIES0 W = Elizabeth Field 0 a Airport Town of Southold Fishers Island, New York 0 U_ a Airport Projects Map U N O a � � Figure - 1 �o`OgUfFO(�COGs. ----- Table 3-1 provides a summary of the thirteen soil units and includes their respective hydric and farmland rating. Table 3-1:Web Soil Survey Summary Map Unit Map Unit Name Hydric Rating Farmland Rating Symbol Bc Beaches Not hydric Not prime farmland Bm Bridgehampton silt loam,graded Not hydric Not prime farmland CuB Cut and fill land,gently sloping Not hydric Not prime farmland CuC Cut and fill land,sloping Not hydric Not prime farmland CuE Cut and fill land,steep Not hydric Not prime farmland Du Dune land Not hydric Not prime farmland Es Escarpments Not hydric Not prime farmland Fs Fill land, sandy Hydric Not prime farmland Farmland of Statewide PIB Plymouth loamy sand, 3 to 8 percent slopes Not hydric Importance Riverhead and Haven soils, graded,0 to 8 percent RhB Not hydric Not prime farmland slopes RpE Riverhead and Plymouth very bouldery soils, 15 to Not hydric Not prime farmland 35 percent slopes Tm Tidal Marsh Hydric Not prime farmland W Water Not hydric Not prime farmland Source:USDA NRCS Although there are 13 soil units identified within the study area (i.e.,the Airport property),the proposed project area is primarily comprised of three soil units: cut and fill land (CuB, CuC), fill land (Fs), and dune land (Du). Soils and their characteristics are important in identifying concerns related to the existing airport site, as well as future airport development. The following aspects of the soil (i.e., hydric soils, farmland soils), found on or adjacent to the proposed project area were considered and will be reviewed in further detail later in the report. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 3-3 .o�Og11FF0lKCOG_ Hydric Soils The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual states that the presence of hydric soils is one of three essential characteristics of wetlands. "Hydric soils are soils that are saturated, flooded, or ponded long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part" (USDA Soil Conservation Service, 1987).According to the NRCS Web Soil Survey(see Appendix D),the only hydric soil unit identified within proposed project areas is fill land, sandy (Fs) which represents approximately 39.2%of Airport property. Farmland Soils Important farmlands include all pasturelands, croplands, and forests considered to be prime, unique, or statewide or locally important lands as defined below. According to the USDA, prime farmland is land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops and is also available for these uses. It has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce economically sustained high yields of crops when treated and managed according to acceptable farming methods, including water management32. According to the NRCS Web Soil Survey (see Appendix D), none of the soil units identified within the study area are considered prime farmland. Unique farmland, as defined by the USDA, is land other than prime farmland that is used for the production of specific high-value food and fiber crops, such as citrus, tree nuts, olives, cranberries, and other fruits and vegetables. It has the special combination of soil quality,growing season,moisture supply, temperature, humidity, air drainage, elevation, and aspect needed for the soil to economically produce sustainable high yields of these crops when properly managed. The water supply is dependable and of adequate quality. Nearness to markets is an additional consideration. Unique farmland is not based on national criteria. It commonly is in areas where there is a special microclimate,such as the wine county in California 31. None of the soil units identified within the study area are considered unique farmland. Farmland of Statewide Importance is land, in addition to prime and unique farmland,that is of statewide importance for the production of food, feed, fiber, forage, and oil seed crops. Criteria for defining and delineating this land are determined by the appropriate state agency or agencies. Generally, additional 32 USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service.Prime Farmland.Accessed on August 29,2016.Available at: http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/null/?ud=nres143 014052 33 United States Department of Agricultural Natural Resources Conservation Service.Unique Farmland.Accessed on May 3,2016.Available at: http//www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/pr/soils/?cid=nresl4lp2 037285 Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 3-4 farmlands of statewide importance include those that are nearly prime farmland and that economically produce high yield as prime farmlands if conditions are favorable. According to the NRCS Web Soil Survey (see Appendix D), none of the soil units identified within the proposed project area are considered farmland of statewide importance. 3.4 Environmental Impact Categories During the preliminary scoping process for the proposed project, federal and state agencies were sent letters requesting information or comments regarding environmental resources in or near the study area. Table 3-2 presents the agencies that were sent preliminary scoping letters in June 2016 and summarizes information received from the agencies that responded. Each agency was requested to respond by July 3, 2016. As indicated in each of the agency letters,an agency that did not provide a response by that date was assumed to have had no comments with regard to the proposed project. Table 3-2: Preliminary Scoping Agency List Agency Agency Response/ i n Provided Documentation within the EA should include discussion or United States Environmental Protection Agency consideration of: purpose and need, obstruction removal (USEPA),Region 2 methods, sole source aquifer review, federal and state consultation for endangered species and critical habitats, wetlands,cumulative impacts, floodplains, and air quality U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS) IPaC system identified six(6) federally listed species having the otential to occur within or near the study area. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers No comments received New York State Department of State No comments received (NYSDOS) New York State Division of Historic Preservation No historic properties will be affected by the proposed project NYSDOT—Aviation Services Bureau No comments received NYSDEC—New York Natural Heritage Identified ten(10) state-listed species and one(1)significant Program(NYNHP) natural community as having been documented at or in the vicinity of the Airport NYSDEC Region 1, Regional Director No comments received Proposed project will require tidal and/or freshwater wetlands permits from the NYSDEC;conduct survey to determine the NYSDEC Region 1, Regional Permit presence of state-listed species;proposed project is located in Administrator the Fishers Island Critical Environmental Area(CEA); assess proposed project for consistency with applicable coastal policies;consult with SHPO with regard to archeological sensitivity. Town of Southold, Planning Director No comments received Suffolk County, Division of Environmental Quality(DEQ) No comments received Source:C&S Engineers,Inc. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 3-5 o,p5UFF04 COG .? s3 Information provided by these agencies was used to supplement review of available environmental data from online resources and field surveys that have been previously conducted by the airport sponsor or for the current proposed project (i.e., wetland delineations, Phase 1A Archeological Investigation). Information that was obtained from online resources is included within Appendix E. A list of each of the involved agencies that were sent letters during the preliminary scoping process (i.e., environmental distribution list), a copy of the scoping letters that were sent and agency responses that were received are included in Appendix F. Information provided by the agencies will be discussed in more detail in the appropriate sections within this chapter and in Chapter 4 (Environmental Consequences). This section examines the existing environmental and socioeconomic conditions within and/or near the study area. The impact categories listed in chapter 4 of FAA Order 1050.1F were reviewed in order to determine what impact categories will not be affected and those that have the potential to be affected by the proposed project. 3.4.1 Air Quality and Climate Change Air Quality In general, air quality means the state or condition of the air around us. Good air quality refers to clean unpolluted air.As discussed in Chapter 1 of the Desk Reference,air quality regulations in the United States are based on concerns that high concentrations of air pollutants can harm human health, especially for children, the elderly, and people with compromised health conditions; as well as adversely affect public welfare by damage to crops, vegetation, buildings, and other property. The proposed project is taking place within the boundary of Airport property in Suffolk County, New York. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency(USEPA)Green Book34(current as of June 17, 2016), Suffolk County is a moderate nonattainment area for 8-hour ozone (2008) and a maintenance area for particulate matter(PM-2.5).Appendix E includes a copy of the current USEPA Green Book criteria pollutant designations for Suffolk County. Although the proposed project would not result in an increase in aviation-related (i.e., aircraft, auxiliary power units (APUs), ground support equipment (GSE)) pollutant emissions, there would be an increase in emissions from stationary sources associated with the combustion of fuel oil for heating the new terminal 36 USEPA Green Book.New York Nona ttainment/Maintenance Status for each County by Year for all Criteria Pollutants.Current as of lune 17, 2016.Accessed on July 29,2016.Available at:http://www3.epa.gov/airgualitV/greenbook/anayo ny.html Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 3-6 ^`�gUFfO(KCOG building and the private hangar as well as a temporary increase in emissions from use of heavy equipment and travel by contractors during construction. According to FAA's Aviation Emissions and Air Quality Handbook (Version 3, July 2014), if the proposed project will cause an emission increase and is located within an EPA-designated nonattainment or maintenance area, an emissions inventory must be prepared and General Conformity for nonattainment pollutants must be addressed. Potential impacts to air quality and General Conformity for nonattainment pollutants will be assessed in Chapter 4(Environmental Consequences) of this report. Climate Change Climate change is attributed to greenhouse gases (GHGs), which are pollutants such as carbon dioxide (COA methane, nitrous oxide and refrigerants that trap heat and radiation in the earth's atmosphere. Unlike criteria pollutants, GHG emissions do not directly affect the regional air quality but affect the earth's atmosphere globally. There is a direct correlation between fuel combustion and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In terms of U.S.contributions,the General Accounting Office(GAO)reports that"domestic aviation contributes about 3 percent of total carbon dioxide emissions, according to EPA data," compared with other industrial sources including the remainder of the transportation sector (20 percent) and power generation (41 percent)35. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) estimates that GHG emissions from aircraft account for roughly three percent of all anthropogenic GHG emissions globally36. Climate change due to GHG emissions is a global phenomenon, so the affected environment is the global climate.37 The scientific community is continuing efforts to better understand the impact of aviation emissions on the global atmosphere. The FAA is leading and participating in a number of initiatives intended to clarify the role that commercial aviation plays in GHG emissions and climate. The FAA, with support from the U.S. Global Change Research Program and its participating federal agencies (e.g., NASA, NOAA, EPA, and DOE), has developed the Aviation Climate Change Research Initiative (ACCRI) in an effort to advance scientific understanding of regional and global climate impacts of aircraft emissions. The FAA also funds the Partnership for AIR Transportation Noise & Emissions Reduction (PARTNER) Center of Excellence 35 Aviation and Climate Change. GAO Report to Congressional Committees,(2009) 36 Alan Melrose,"European ATM and Climate Adaption:A Scoping Study,"in ICAO Environmental Report.(2010). 37 As explained by the USEPA,"greenhouse gases,once emitted,become well mixed in the atmosphere,meaning U.S.emissions can affect not only the U.S. population and environment but other regions of the world as well; likewise, emissions in other countries can affect the U.S."Climate Change Division,Office of Atmospheric Programs, USEPA Technical Support Document for Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a)of the Clean Air Act 2-3(2009). Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 3-7 a research initiative to quantify the effects of aircraft exhaust and contrails on global and U.S. climate and atmospheric composition. Similar research topics are being examined at the international level by the International Civil Aviation Organization.38 Climate change is expected to pose significant challenges to land use and natural resources management in the future.Sea level rise,warming waters and changes in storm patterns are expected to greatly affect coastal areas in the future. Past storm events have damaged coastal residences, natural features, and public infrastructure in areas of the Town of Southold, including Fishers Island. In 2012, Hurricane Sandy flooded areas never flooded before in recorded history. According to the Climate Adaption Guidebook for New York State(2011)(see Appendix E),coastal areas could experience 2 to 5-inch rises in sea level in the 2020's.This poses a risk to low-lying areas and natural resources within or near these coastal areas. In an effort to adapt to the impacts of climate change and sea level rise, the Town of Southold has identified climate change objectives within their Comprehensive Plan (Southold 2020 The New Comprehensive Plan for the Town of Southold39); including developing a coastal resilience plan and identifying critical natural defenses to address sea level rise. As stated in the Comprehensive Plan, "the Town has adopted a proactive approach to prepare for hazards recognizing that adapting to these threats is unavoidable." Currently there are no federal or state standards for aviation-related GHG emissions. Although the proposed project would not result in an increase in aviation related GHG emissions, it would result in an increase in GHG emissions associated with construction activities and stationary source emissions. Therefore, climate will be assessed further in Chapter 4 (Environmental Consequences) of this report. 38 Lourdes Q.Maurice and David S.Lee,Chapter 5:Aviation Impacts on Climate.Final Report of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)Committee on Aviation and Environmental Protection Workshop.October 29"'—November 2nd 2007,Montreal. 39 Town of Southold. Southold 2020: The New Comprehensive Plan. Accessed on August 23, 2016. Available at: http://ny- southold.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/`View/1720 Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 3-8 D 3.4.2 Biological Resources According to Chapter 2 of the Desk Reference, biological resources are valued for their intrinsic,aesthetic, economic,and recreational qualities and include flora (plants) and fauna (fish, birds, reptiles,amphibians, marine mammals, coral reefs), and their respective habitats. Typical categories of biological resources include: ■ Terrestrial and aquatic plant and animal species ■ Game and non-game species ■ Special status species (state or Federally-listed threatened or endangered species, marine mammals, or species of concern, such as species proposed for listing or migratory birds) ■ Environmentally-sensitive or critical habitats. This section discusses federal and state-listed threatened and endangered species, ecological communities, and migratory birds that occur or have the potential to occur within the study area. Threatened and Endangered Species Federally-listed Endangered and Threatened Species—The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) utilizes the Information, Planning and Conservation (IPaC) system as a tool for streamlining the environmental review process. The IPaC system provides a species list that identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of the study area and/or may be affected by the proposed project. Based on information supplied by the USFWS IPaC system (see Appendix F) there are currently six federally-listed species that have the potential to occur within or near the study area. Table 3-3, presents the threatened and endangered species currently identified by the USFWS IPaC System. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 3-9 � '?Ioft - Table 3-3: Federally-Listed Endangered and Threatened Species Potential to Occur within I Common Use wide,flat,open, sandy beaches with very little Not expected—no suitable Piping Plover grass or other vegetation. Nesting territories include habitat within project areas (Charadrius melodus) small creeks or wetlands based on site visit Red Knot Sandy beaches with gentle slopes, minimal wave Not expected—no suitable (Calidris canutus rufa) action habitat within project areas based on site visit Roseate tern Strictly a coastal species,usually observed foraging Not expected—no suitable (Sterna dougallii) in nearshore surf. Open sandy beaches isolated from habitat within project areas human activity are optimal nesting habitat based on site visit Flowering Plants: Sandplain gerardia Specialist plant that prefers dry,sandy and exposed Expected—suitable habitat (Agalinis acuta) mineral soil and native grasslands based on site visit Barrier island beaches between area directly behind Not expected—no suitable Seabeach amaranth the beach and high tide line. These beaches are habitat within project areas (Amaranthus pumilus) usually over 20 meters wide and protected from based on site visit foot traffic and vehicles Caves and mines in winter. Summer habitat consists Expected—suitable habitat Northern long-eared bat of wide variety of forested/wooded habitats, based on site visit (Myotis septentrionalis) emergent wetlands,edges of agricultural fields and pastures Source:USFWS IPaC System Official Species List,May 19,2016 Though the bald eagle was delisted in 2007 from the Endangered Species Act (ESA), it is still afforded federal protection under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA). The bald eagle is still listed as threatened in New York State. According to the IPaC system Official Species List (see Appendix F), there are no critical habitats located within the study area and no other Federally threatened or endangered species, or environmentally- sensitive habitat areas were identified. State-Listed Endangered and Threatened Species—The NYSDEC Region 1 Division of Environmental Permits and the NYSDEC Division of Fish, Wildlife, and Marine Resources, New York Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP) were contacted in regards to the potential for known occurrences of state significant habitats, endangered, threatened, or rare species, or species of special concern within the vicinity of the study area. With regard to state species and/or significant habitats, the NYSDEC Region 1 Division of Environmental Permits stated in their scoping response that "The proposed project will require a Tidal Wetlands permit and may require a Freshwater Wetlands permit from this agency.The New York Natural Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 3-10 ��09UFF0(��oGs� i� Heritage Program database indicates that several endangered or threatened species have been identified in the project area and vicinity. Trimming, excavating, and re-grading vegetated portions of tidal and freshwater wetland adjacent areas are regulated activities pursuant to the Tidal and Freshwater Wetlands Acts" (see Appendix F, correspondence dated June 13, 2016 from Ms. Sherri Aicher, NYSDEC Division of Environmental Permits, Region 1). As shown in Table 3-4, the NYNHP response identified ten species and one significant natural (wetland/aquatic) community as having been documented at or in the vicinity of the Airport (see Appendix F, correspondence dated July 1, 2016 from Nicholas Conrad, NYNHP). Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 3-11 � T, sof* baa,: Table 3-4: State-Listed Endangered and Threatened Species i Common Name Potential to Occur Habitat Note) Project Piping Plover Use wide,flat,open,sandy beaches with very Not Expected—no suitable (Charadrius melodus) little grass or other vegetation.Nesting habitat within project areas territories include small creeks or wetlands. based on site visit Common Tern Coastal beaches or barrier islands,marshes or Not Expected—no suitable (Sterna hirundo) inland lakes habitat within project areas based on site visit Vascular Plants: Large Calyx Goosefoot Rocky ocean beaches,and occasionally on (Chenopodium berlandieri adjacent pond shores,salt marshes and shrub Expected—suitable habitat based on site visit var. macrocal cium) thickets Purple Milkweed Open habitats,from sedge meadows,wet Expected—suitable habitat (Asclepias purpurascens) fields,and fens,to dry oak woods,serpentine based on site visit barrens,and hay meadows Slender Blue Flag Sea level fens,edges of salt marshes and Expected—suitable habitat brackish meadows,burned or scraped old (Iris prismatica) fields,ditches,and roadside swales based on site visit Marsh Straw Sedge Maritime rock ledges,brackish or freshwater Not Expected—no suitable (Carex hormathodes) marshes,moist coastal sands at sea level habitat within project areas based on site visit Northern Gama Grass High salt marsh,wet meadows,oak forests,old Expected—suitable habitat ri sacum dactyloides) fields,roadsides,and dunes based on site visit Coastal Silverweed Coastal wetlands including salt marshes, Not Expected—no suitable (Argentina egedii ssp. brackish tidal marshes,and the shores of habitat within project areas Groenlandica) coastal salt ponds based on site visit. Field Beadgrass Damp meadows,fields,mowed roadsides, Expected—suitable habitat Pas alum leave mowed grounds,and lawns based on site visit Scotch Lovage Not Expected—no suitable (Ligusticum scothicum ssp. Sandy or rocky seashores habitat within project areas Scothicum) based on site visit. Marine Rocky Intertidal Inhabiting rocky shores that are washed by Not Expected—no suitable rough,high-energy ocean waves habitat within project areas based on site visit Source:NYSDEC NYNHP correspondence dated July 1,2016 The state-listed species and habitat descriptions identified in this section of the report were obtained from the NYNHP website and from species-specific NYNHP Guides (see Appendix F). No other state significant habitats, endangered, threatened, or rare species; or species of special concern were noted by the NYNHP within the vicinity of proposed project areas. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 3-12 , ^o�Og1FF01K�oG= o m: Site Visit Results—a site visit for the proposed project was completed by C&S Engineers, Inc. (C&S) on May 23rd and May 24th, 2016. During the site visit a habitat assessment/survey was conducted within proposed project areas for the federal and state-listed species identified by the USFWS IPaC system and the NYNHP(see Table 3-3 and Table 3-4). It should be noted that none of the listed-species were observed during the site visit. Based on C&S's habitat assessment, with the exception of project areas related to runway pavement rehabilitation and airport entrance road improvements (which consist of existing paved or gravel surfaces), proposed project areas generally consist of one or a mixture-of the following vegetative cover types: successional shrubland, mowed lawn, brushy cleared land, or successional northern hardwoods. Federally-listed Endangered and Threatened Species Based on the results of C&S's habitat assessment, no habitat within the proposed project areas was identified and no impacts are anticipated for the following federally listed species: Federally-listed Birds: ➢ Piping Plover:According to the USFWS website,the piping plover are small,stocky shorebirds that uses wide, flat, open, sandy beaches with very little grass or other vegetation. Nesting territories often include small creeks or wetlands. The piping plover are migratory birds. In the spring and summer they breed in the northern United States and Canada. In the fall, plovers migrate south and winter along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico or other southern locations. In order to alert the public of the threatened status of the piping plover and to encourage protection of this species and its habitat, signage has been placed along the shoreline between the Runway 7 end and the Runway 30 end of the Airport. Based on C&S's May 2016 habitat survey,the project areas do not contain piping plover habitat and no Piping Plover were observed during the site visit. Red knot: According to the USFWS website, at 9 to 10 inches long, the red knot is a large bulky sandpiper with a short straight black bill. Red knots depend primarily on horseshoe crab eggs and therefore occur more frequently in areas of dense horseshoe crab spawning, usually sandy beaches with gentle slopes and minimal wave action. Based on C&S's habitat survey, the project areas do not contain red knot habitat and no red knot were observed during the site visit. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 3-13 ' ,r > Roseate tern: In addition to being a federally-listed species, the roseate tern is also a NYS-listed endangered species. According to the NYSDEC website, the roseate tern is a 14 to 17-inch bird with a wingspan of about 30 inches. It is strictly a coastal species and is usually observed foraging in nearshore surf. In the winter, the roseate tern is pelagic (i.e., part of the ocean that is not near shore) in its habits. Open sandy beaches isolated from human activity are optimal nesting habitat for the roseate tern. Based on C&S's habitat survey,the project areas do not contain roseate tern habitat and no roseate tern were observed during the site visit. As previously mentioned, the NYNHP was contacted in regards to the potential for known occurrences of state significant habitats, endangered, threatened, or rare species, or species of special concern within the vicinity of the study area. It should be noted that the roseate tern was not identified by the NYNHP as having the potential to occur. Given that the NYNHP did not identify the roseate tern as having the potential to occur and based on the results of C&S's habitat survey, the roseate tern and its habitat are not expected within proposed project areas. Since the proposed project would not result in an increase in aircraft utilizing the airport, there would be no increase in potential for in-air bird impacts or permanent increases in visual and auditory disturbances to the piping plover, red knot, or roseate tern. Although, as documented above, no impacts to these bird species are expected as a result of the proposed project, construction activities related to vegetation removal will still be limited to the winter months (October 31St through March 31St) when birds would be expected to have migrated south to winter in warmer climates. In addition, during the summer months, construction equipment access will be limited to project and previously disturbed areas to avoid impacting potential bird nests that may be located in other areas on Airport property. Federally-listed Flowering Plants: Seabeach amaranth: In addition to being a federally-listed species,the seabeach amaranth is also a NYS-listed threatened species, however, it was not identified by the NYNHP as having the potential to occur within the study area. Based on the USFWS website,seabeach amaranth occurs on barrier island beaches between the area directly behind the beach and the high tide line. These beaches are usually over 20 meters wide and protected from foot traffic and vehicles. Seabeach amaranth appears to be intolerant of competition and does not occur on well-vegetated sites. The species appears to need extensive areas of barrier island beaches and inlets, functioning in a relatively natural and dynamic manner. Based on C&S's habitat survey, the project areas do not contain seabeach amaranth habitat and it was not identified by the NYNHP as having the potential to occur with regard to the proposed project. Based on this information, seabeach amaranth is Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 3-14 � not anticipated within proposed project areas. Therefore, no significant impact to seabeach amaranth is expected. Based on the results of C&S's habitat assessment and consultation with the USFWS (see Appendix F),the following species will be discussed further in Chapter 4 (Environmental Consequences): ■ Sandplain gerardia (flowering plant) ■ Northern long-eared bat (mammal) ■ Piping plover(bird) State-listed Endangered and Threatened Species Based on the results of C&S's habitat assessment, no habitat within the proposed project areas was identified and no impacts are anticipated for the following state-listed species. State-Listed Birds: Piping Plover As detailed above, the project areas do not contain piping plover habitat and no Piping Plover were observed during the site visit. ➢ Common tern: The state-listed common tern is the most widespread and abundant tern in New York. Common terns inhabit sand and shell beaches, undisturbed grassy uplands and rocky inland shores; they breed in North America along the Atlantic coast from the northern Maritime Provinces of Canada to South Carolina, and occasionally in the Gulf of Mexico; and wintering grounds are from its southernmost breeding areas on the Atlantic Coast to northern Ecuador and Brazil. From late April to mid-May, common terns return to their northern breeding grounds with eggs laid during late May through July. Based on C&S's habitat survey, the project areas do not contain common tern habitat and no common tern were observed during the site visit. Therefore, there would be no impact to the common tern. ➢ Bald Eagle: Though the bald eagle was delisted in 2007 from the ESA, it is still afforded federal protection under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act(BGEPA).The Bald Eagle remains listed as threatened in New York State. Bald eagle populations are often associated with forested areas adjacent to major river systems.The proposed project is not taking place in forested areas located along major river systems, does not involve cutting any known bald eagle nesting trees or constructing any towers, wires and/or other obstructions known to potentially affect the bald eagle. In addition, information obtained from the USFWS and the NYNHP did not identify known bald known eagle nests within the project area. Based on this information, there would be no significant impact to the bald eagle. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 3-15 � Since the proposed project would not result in an increase in aircraft utilizing the airport,there would be no increase in potential for in-air bird impacts or permanent increases in visual and auditory disturbances to the piping plover, common tern or bald eagle. Although, as documented above, no impacts to these bird species are expected as a result of the proposed project, construction activities related to vegetation removal will still be limited to the winter months (October 315`through March 3151) when birds would be expected to have migrated south to winter in warmer climates. In addition, during the summer months, construction equipment access will be limited to project and previously disturbed areas to avoid impacting potential bird nests that may be located in other areas on Airport property. State-listed Vascular Plants Marsh Straw Sedge: The marsh straw sedge is a tufted grass-like perennial with stems 20 to 80 cm tall; there are 15 known populations and over 20 historical sites. Marsh straw sedge occurs most commonly in and adjacent to salt or brackish coastal waters, or rarely slightly inland, tidal marshes. In these settings it can occur in dune swales and on dry or wet sands. It also grows in fens, on margins of wetlands, and in wet forests adjacent to the coast, maritime rock ledges, brackish or freshwater marshes, and moist coastal sands at sea level.Conservation strategies and management practices indicate that phragmites should be monitored closely at sites where it appears to be negatively impacting populations. If appropriate, the phragmites should be controlled, visitors need to be prevented from trampling, and ditching should be avoided at populations where marsh straw sedge occurs. Based on C&S's habitat survey, the project areas do not contain marsh straw sedge habitat and no marsh straw sedge was observed. The proposed project is not taking place in wetlands,wet forests, sand dunes, coastal waters, or marshes. Given this information, marsh straw sedge is not anticipated within proposed project areas. Therefore, there would be no impact to marsh straw sedge. Scotch Lovage: Scotch lovage are simple or branched, stout plants, 3-6 decimeters tall; there are six existing populations but only half of these have over 100 plants. It occurs most commonly in stabilized dunes with low shrubs and scattered oaks on a barrier beach, under red cedars with grasses and wildflowers, on the edge of disturbed coastal oak-hickory forest located near the headwaters of a short tidal river or next to a high marsh or salt pond, and on the steep eroded bank above the ocean. Conservation strategies and management practices indicate that this species should be protected from human interaction and from the incursion of phragmites. The NYNHP correspondence identified this species at the south end of Hay Harbor on Fishers Island, specifically, on the grounds of the Ferguson Museum Preserve. The Proposed Project is not located near the Ferguson Museum Preserve and is not taking place within dunes, on the edge of Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 3-16 � ho��FFO(KCOG= 2 a disturbed coastal oak-hickory forest, or adjacent to a tidal river or marsh pond. Based on C&S's habitat survey, the project areas do not contain scotch lovage habitat and no scotch lovage was observed. Therefore,there would be no impact to scotch lovage. ➢ Coastal Silverweed: Coastal silverweed is a creeping perennial herb species; it spreads by long stolons which root at the nodes, producing new leafy stems. There are 10 existing populations and most of them are of good to excellent quality. It occurs most commonly in coastal wetlands including salt marshes, brackish tidal marshes, the shores of coastal salt ponds, and wet, sandy seacoasts,commonly in brackish soil. Conservation strategies and management practices include controlling phragmites invasions in the salt marshes where it exists and prevent new incursions. Natural buffers should be established around the salt marshes to decrease pollution runoff and other direct human disturbances. Based on C&S's habitat survey,the project areas do not contain coastal silverweed habitat and no coastal silverweed was observed. The proposed project is not taking place within wetlands. Therefore,there would be no impact to coastal silverweed. State-listed Wetland/Aquatic Community ➢ Marine Rocky Intertidal: Marine rocky intertidal is a community inhabiting rocky shores that are washed by rough, high-energy ocean waves. Characteristic organisms are attached marine algae, mussels,sea stars, urchins,and barnacles that can withstand the impact of the waves and periodic desiccation. The community is typically rich in species. Attached organisms usually cover more than 60%of the substrate,especially at the lower intertidal zone. According to the NYNHP guide, there are probably less than 40 occurrences statewide. This community is restricted to the rocky ocean shores in Bronx, Westchester, and Suffolk counties and the largest examples are found on Fishers Island and Montauk Point. Conservation strategies and management practices indicate the primary threat to marine rocky intertidal communities is the spread of non-native marine algae; marine rocky intertidal community occurrences are threatened by trampling, shoreline development, pollution run-off from upland areas, and trash dumping; and when considering development activities, minimize actions that will change what water carries and how water travels to the rocky shore. The proposed project is not taking place on rocky shores. Based on C&S's habitat survey,the project areas do not contain this community.Therefore,there would be no significant impact to the marine rocky intertidal community. Given the information detailed above, the proposed project would not impact common tern, bald eagle, marsh straw sedge, scotch lovage, coastal silverweed, or a marine rocky intertidal community and no further discussion of these species will occur within this EA. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 3-17 � L _ The following species will be discussed further in Chapter 4 (Environmental Consequences): ■ Piping plover ■ Large calyx goosefoot(vascular plant) ■ Purple milkweed (vascular plant) ■ Slender blue flag(vascular plant) ■ Northern gamma grass (vascular plant) ■ Field beadgrass (vascular plant) Migratory Birds As discussed above, the USFWS Official Species List identified two-threatened and one-endangered bird species as having the potential to occur within or near the study area. The USFWS Official Species List did not include any designated critical habitat for birds within the study area. The USFWS IPaCTrust Resources Report obtained from the IPaC system (see Appendix F) also identified a number of migratory birds of conservation concern that could potentially be affected by activities within or near study area. ■ American oystercatcher ■ American bittern ■ Black-billed cuckoo ■ Blue-winged warbler ■ Canada warbler ■ Fox sparrow ■ Horned grebe ■ Hudsonian godwit ■ Least bittern ■ Least tern ■ Pied-billed grebe ■ Prairie warbler ■ Purple sandpiper ■ Rusty blackbird • Saltmarsh sparrow ■ Seaside sparrow ■ Short-eared owl ■ Snowy egret ■ Upland sandpiper ■ Wood thrush Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 3-18 � -- _ Migratory birds will be discussed further in Chapter 4 (Environmental Consequences) Existing Ecological Communities In March 2014,the NYSDEC published a report entitled Ecological Communities of New York State(Edinger et al. 2014)40, Second Edition (Ecological Communities) as part of the New York Natural Heritage Program inventory.The report is a revised and expanded version of the original 1990 version that lists and describes ecological systems,subsystems,and communities within New York State.The classification was developed to help assess and protect biological diversity of the state. An assessment (survey) of the ecological communities within the proposed project area was conducted consistent with the representative characteristics presented in Ecological Communities. As shown on Figure 3-2, based on review of aerial photography and information collected during C&S's site visit, the study area is made-up of a variety of ecological communities including, successional shrubland, successional northern hardwoods, gravel/sand beach, and wetlands. The study area also includes several communities identified within the terrestrial cultural subsystem (i.e., mowed lawn, brushy cleared land, buildings/structures, paved/unpaved roads, paved/unpaved path). Ecological Communities defines terrestrial cultural communities as"a subsystem that includes communities that are either created and maintained by human activities, or are modified by human influence to such a degree that the physical conformation of the substrate, or the biological composition of the resident community is substantially different from the character of the substrate community as it existed prior to human influence." As shown on Figure 3-2, the proposed project areas contain the following ecological communities (i.e., vegetative cover types): ■ Successional shrubland: A shrubland that occurs on sites that have been cleared (for farming, logging, development,etc.)or otherwise disturbed.This community has at least 50 percent shrub cover. ■ Successional northern hardwoods:A hardwood or mixed forest that occurs on sites that have been cleared or otherwise disturbed. 40 Edinger,G.J.,D.J.Evans,S.Gebauer,T.G.Howard,D.M.Hunt,and A.M.Olivero(editors).2014.Ecological Communities of New York State. Second Edition.Accessed on March 17,2016.Available at:http://www,dec.ny.gov/docs/wildlife pdf/ecocomrn2014.pc1 Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 3-19 .O`�gUFFO(KO. Gs�; z- ■ Brushy cleared land: A former forest, woodland, or shrubland that has been clear-cut or cleared by brush-hog.The cut stumps of trees and shrubs are evident and usually common. Vegetation is patchy with scattered herbs, shrubs, and tree saplings. The amount of vegetative cover depends on soil fertility and the length of time since the land was cleared. ■ Mowed Lawn: residential, recreational,or commercial land, or unpaved airport runways in which the groundcover is dominated by clipped grasses and there is less than 30 percent cover of trees and less than SO percent cover by ornamental and/or native shrubs. The groundcover is maintained by mowing and broadleaf herbicide application. ■ Paved road/path:A road or pathway that is paved with asphalt, concrete, brick, stone, etc.There may be sparse vegetation rooted in cracks in the paved surface. ■ Unpaved road/path: A sparsely vegetated road or pathway or gravel, bare soil, or bedrock outcrop. These roads or pathways are maintained by regular trampling or scraping of the land surface.The substrate consists of soil or parent material at the site which may be modified by the addition of local organic material (woodchips, logs, etc.) or sand and gravel. ■ Mowed roadside/pathway: A narrow strip of mowed vegetation along the side of a road or a mowed pathway through taller vegetation or along utility right-of-way corridors. The vegetation in these mowed strips and paths may be dominated by grasses, sedges, and rushes; or it may be dominated by forbs,vines, and low shrubs that can tolerate infrequent mowing. Although the marine rocky intertidal community (i.e., a community inhabiting rocky shores that are washed by rough, high-energy ocean waves)was identified by the NYNHP as having the potential to occur within or near the study area (see Appendix F), based on observations made during C&S's site visit, this community is not located within the proposed project areas (see Figure 3-2). The proposed project has the potential to impact vegetative cover types. As a result, ecological communities will be assessed further in Chapter 4 (Environmental Consequences) of this report. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 3-20 A// y � � �y0DU1 H, r ' •� Legend _. Airport Property Line sr , Area of Potential Effect .--�- 280ac' esSuccessional Northern Hardwoods ; Proposed Project Areas (Potential habitat for Northern Long-Eared Bat,Purple Milkweed, Large Calyx Goosefoot,Northern Gama Grass) 0 92 acres Mowed Lawn (Potential habitat for Sandplain Gerardia,Slender Blue Flag, Terrestrial Cultural Northern Gama Grass,Field Beadgrass) l Y (Pavement, Gravel, Bldgs) 0.18 acres Terrestrial Cultural 027 acres TerrestnalCullural ® :•` Beach 0 OB acres Successional Shrubland I 1 • Wetland (Potential habitat for Northern Long-Eared Bat,Large ♦ _ Calyx Goosefoot,Purple Milkweed,Northern Gamt. a ( b- -`- 11 �+��•�►� Grass) ♦� 026 acres Brushy Cleared Land 'fir !/ •`� , Ili ••~� 0026 acres Successional Northern Hardwoods Successional Shrubland (Potential habitat for Purple Milkweed,Slender Blue Flag �� ♦` , . 1 (Potential habitat for Northern Long-Eared Bat,Purple Milkweed, Large Calyx Goosefoot,Northern Gama t ♦ �/ �� Large Calyx Goosefoot,Northern Gama Grass) Grass,Sandplain Gerardia) _ 0 : ;` '', I `~ 'F • ' ♦ " acres Mowed Lawn E (Potential i habitat for Sandplain Gerardia,Slender Blue Flag. Mowed Lawn rLD ,♦ r '�` Northern Gama Grass,Field Beadgrass) U , \ , ♦ �� \� Brushy Cleared Land w ` , `� '♦, �` Successional Northern t i Hardwoods NI SIS r--• err - -'. r A ml ♦ •. 0 NPurpler 16 acres Successional Shrubland Potential t for Northern Long-Eared Bat,Large ` Cal x Goosefoot, Milkweed,Northern Gama t$ ♦ Gr ss) CL to 6 3 acres TerresMal Cultural `♦ 0 250 500 S2 0 Feet o ♦ ' '�� 1 inch = 325 feet U ♦,-, � When panted at 11"x17" E ' � Date 10/3/2016 o w` � ♦ � _ O Y3 z s ages reresl..ai c�e��rai IL ♦jCBS o •` t Elizabeth Field 0 Airport Town of Southold JO ;.dl ` 0 41 acres Successional Shrubland I . _ - (Potential habitat for Northern Long-Eared Bat,Large Fishers Island, New York Calyx Goosefoot,Purple Milkweed,Northern Gama 0 Grass) rq L_ 0.32 acres Mowed Lawn (Potential habitat for Sandplain Gerardia,Slender Blue Flag, Ecological C o l I YY'1 I 1 I YY1 1 u n I I+ I e s & Northern Gama Grass,Field Beadgrass) 016 Terrestrial Cultural Potential T&E Species Habitat Map 0 LL u ft h " Figure 3-2 3.4.3 Coastal Resources According to Chapter 4 of the Desk Reference, coastal resources include all natural resources occurring within coastal waters and their adjacent shorelands. Coastal resources include islands, transitional and intertidal areas, salt marshes, wetlands, floodplains, estuaries, beaches, dunes, barrier islands, and coral reefs,as well as fish and wildlife and their respective habitats within these areas.Coastal resources include the coastlines of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans,the Great Lakes, and the Gulf of Mexico. Based on a review the USFWS Coastal Barrier Resources System Mapper41 a portion of the Airport is located within a coastal barrier resource system (Unit F01, Fishers Island Barriers). However, none of the proposed project areas are located within or immediately adjacent to this coastal barrier resource system. Information that was reviewed on the USFWS Coastal Barrier Resource System website is included within Appendix E. Based on a review of the New York State (NYS) DOS, Office of Planning and Development's NYS Coastal Boundary Map42, the Airport is located within a coastal area that is covered by the State-approved Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP). Therefore, the proposed project must be assessed for its consistency with the Town of Southold LWRP policies as set forth by the New York State Coastal Management Program. Potential impacts to coastal resources, including consistency with the Town of Southold LWRP, will be assessed in Chapter 4 (Environmental Consequences) of this report. 3.4.4 Department of Transportation Act, Section 4(f) In order to preserve the natural beauty of certain areas and/or types of land, Section 4(f) of the DOT Act places restrictions on the use of any significant publicly owned recreational land, public park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge or historic site of national, state, or local significance. According to Chapter 5 of the Desk Reference, Section 4(f) properties include significant: ■ Parks and recreational areas of national, state, or local significance that are both publicly owned and open to the public ■ Publicly owned wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national,state,or local significance that are open to the public; and ■ Historic sites of national, state, or local significance in public or private ownership regardless of whether they are open to the public ^'USFWS,Coastal Barrier Resources System Mapper.Accessed on July 21,2016.Available at:https://www fws gov/ecological-services/habitat- conservation/cbra/maps/mapper html 12 NYS DOS,NYS Coastal Boundary Map.Accessed on July 30,2014.Available at:http.//appext20.dos.ny.gov/coastal map public/map.aspx Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 3-22 ^�o��gUFFOC,rCO�.: 2 The proposed project does not disturb land off airport property and there are no Section 4(f) resources located within Airport property.Therefore, no impact would occur to Section 4(f) resources as a result of the proposed project. No further discussion in regards to Section 4(f) resources will be included within this EA. 3.4.5 Farmlands As explained in Chapter 6 of the Desk Reference, farmlands are defined as those agricultural areas considered important and protected by Federal,state, and local regulations. Important farmlands include all pasturelands, croplands, and forests considered to be prime, unique, or of statewide or local importance. The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) regulates Federal actions with the potential to convert farmland to non-agricultural uses. Specifically, the Act regulates farmland identified as prime, unique, or of statewide or local importance. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has the final authority for designating important farmlands and keeps lists of important farmlands for each state. There are no actively farmed areas within or adjacent to Airport property. Since the proposed project does not involve the conversion of FPPA regulated farmlands to non-agricultural uses, there would be no impacts to farmland. Agricultural Districts: According to the NYSDEC website43,an agricultural district is an area of land certified by the Commissioner of the Department of Agriculture and Markets (pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25, sections 303 and 304) for the purpose of encouraging agricultural activity and protecting farm land. The process to designate these districts includes landowner initiative, preliminary county review, state certification, and adoption by the county. There are agricultural districts established in each county of New York State. Based on review of the Suffolk County Agricultural Districts map44(see Appendix E),there are no designated Agricultural Districts located on Fisher's Island. No further discussion in regards to farmlands will be included within this EA. 43 NYSDEC(Agricultural Districts)website.Accessed on May23,2016.Available at:http.//www.dec.ny.gov/permits/SlSl6.html 44 New York State Agriculture and Markets,Agricultural Districts.Accessed on May 23,2016.Available at: http://www.agriculture.ny.gov/ap/agservices/agricultural-districts.html Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 3-23 r 3.4.6 Hazardous Materials, Solid Waste, and Pollution Prevention Chapter 7 of the Desk Reference, defines solid waste, hazardous waste, hazardous substance, hazardous materials, and pollution prevention as follows: Solid Waste is defined by the implementing regulations of RCRA. Solid waste is generally any discarded material that meets specific regulatory requirements, and can include such items as refuse and scrap metal, spent materials, chemical by-product and sludge from industrial and municipal waste water and water treatment plants. Hazardous Waste is a type of solid waste defined under the implementing regulations of RCRA. A hazardous waste (see 40 CFR 261.3) is a solid waste that possesses at least one of the following four characteristics: ignitability, corrosively, reactivity, or toxicity as defined in 40 CFR part 261 subpart C, or is listed in one of four lists in 40 CFR part 261 subpart D,which contains a list of specific types of solid waste that the USEPA has deemed hazardous. RCRA imposes stringent requirements on the handling, management, and disposal of hazardous waste, especially in comparison to requirements for non- hazardous waste. Hazardous Substance is defined under CERCLA. These substances can be any element, compound, mixture, solution, or substance designated as hazardous under Section 102 of CERCLA; any hazardous substance designated under Section 311(b)(2)(A) or any toxic pollutant listed under Section 307(a) of the Clean Water Act; any hazardous waste under Section 3001 of RCRA; any hazardous air pollutant listed under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act; and any imminently hazardous chemical substance or mixture for which the EPA Administrator has "taken action under" Section 7 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The definition of hazardous substances under CERCLA excludes petroleum products, unless specifically listed or designated there under. Hazardous Materials is any substance or material that has been determined to be capable of posing an unreasonable risk to health, safety, and property when transported in commerce. The term hazardous materials includes both hazardous wastes and hazardous substances, as well as petroleum and natural gas substances and materials. Pollution Prevention describes methods used to avoid, prevent, or reduce pollutant discharges or emissions through strategies such as using fewer toxic inputs, redesigning products, altering manufacturing and maintenance processes, and conserving energy. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 3-24 �gpFFOL¢�o.., ti Gf Identification of Contaminated Sites In order to document the absence or presence of existing contaminated sites within the study area or in the immediate vicinity of proposed project areas,the following databases were reviewed: ■ EPA's Superfund Site Information website—provides Superfund site information through EPA's Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) database including proposed, current, and deleted NPL sites. ■ EPA's Cleanups in My Community website—provides information on RCRA Corrective Action sites, NPL sites, and some Brownfields sites for a specific geographic area. ■ EPA's Hazardous Waste Corrective Action website—provides information about RCRA corrective action facilities. Review of the database's identified above did not note the presence of any hazardous waste sites currently listed or under consideration for listing on the National Priorities List (NPL),the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System List (CERCLIS), the Corrective Action Report list (CORRACTS), or the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act list (RCRA), in relation to the Airport and/or the proposed project areas. In addition, based on review of the NYSDEC Spills Incidents Database, there is no indication of a spill at or immediately adjoining the proposed project areas. Although, not expected, if during construction evidence of a past spill is discovered, the contractor will be responsible for reporting the spill to the NYSDEC Spill Hotline. Solid Waste Handling, storage, and disposal of solid wastes are regulated by local, state, and Federal agencies. The proposed project does not involve expanding airport operations; would not generate hazardous waste or hazardous substances during construction or operation of new buildings; and would not create conditions likely to produce a large increase in solid waste collection,control,or disposal other than short-term waste associated with construction activities. The proposed project would generate solid waste in the form of construction debris including debris in the form of land clearing and vegetation removal and the construction of new buildings. Solid waste will be recycled by the contractor where practicable and the remainder will be disposed of off-site by the contractor consistent with federal,state and local regulations. Solid waste disposal as a result of the proposed project would not be expected to significantly impact the capacity of nearby disposal facilities. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 3-25 QgpFFO(KC�O Tlo Given the information included above, the proposed project would have no significant impact on hazardous materials, solid waste, or pollution prevention. No further discussion in regards to hazardous materials, solid waste, and pollution prevention will be included within this EA. 3.4.7 Historical, Architectural, Archeological, and Cultural Resources According to Chapter 8 of the Desk Reference, historical, architectural, archeological, and cultural resources encompass a range of sites, properties, and physical resources relating to human activities, society, and cultural institutions. A review of federal and state online databases and consultation with the New York State (NYS) Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) were used to determine potential historic, architectural, archeological, and cultural resources impacts. Historic Resources Based on a review of the National Park Service's National Register of Historic Places (NRNP) Program: Research website45,there are two listed NRHP sites identified for Fisher's Island: Latimer Reef Light Station and Race Rock Light Station. According to the NRHP list (see Appendix E), the Latimer Reef Light Station is located in Fisher's Island Sound, one mile northwest of East Point on Fisher's Island and the Race Rock Light Station is located 0.6 miles southwest of Race Point; neither of these sites are located within or adjacent to the study area. Based on review of the New York State Historic Preservation Office Cultural Resource Information System (CRIS) website46,there are no historic properties located within the study area (see Appendix E). Archeological Resources Review of the CRIS website47 identified the entire study area as an archeologically sensitive area (see Appendix E).Therefore,a Phase IA Archeological Investigation (Phase IA Investigation)was completed for the proposed project by Hartgen Archeological Associates, Inc., (see Appendix G, Phase IA Archeological Investigation, Elizabeth Field Airport Improvements,July 2016).The Phase IA Investigation was conducted to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and was completed in accordance to the New York Archaeological Council's Standards for Cultural Resource Investigations and the Curation of Archaeological Collections (1994). 45 National Park Service.National Register of Historic Places Program,Spreadsheet of NRHP List.Accessed on:May 23,2016.Available at: http://www.nps.gov/nr/research/ 46 New York State Historic Preservation Office,Cultural Resource Information System(CRIS).Accessed on May 23,2016.Available at: https://cris.parks.ny.gov/ 4'New York State Historic Preservation Office,Cultural Resource Information System(CRIS).Accessed on May 23,2016.Available at: https://cris.parks.ny.gov/ Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 3-26 ��o`�g11FfOf,r�OG. - According to the Hartgen report (see Appendix G), research completed as part of the investigation identified six archeological sites within one mile of the Airport;two previous surveys within the immediate vicinity of the proposed project; no NR (national register) or NRE (national register eligible) properties; and no properties of undetermined status within proposed project areas.The Hartgen report noted that no precontact or significant historic or cultural resources were identified during the two previous archeological surveys conducted within or adjacent to proposed project areas. Based on the results of the investigation, Hartgen's recommendation stated that, "development activities resulting from construction of the existing airport infrastructure have extensively modified the landscape. The county soil maps show the proposed impacts lying in areas of cut and fill land or fill land. No further archeological investigation is recommended for the Elizabeth Airport project areas." During the preliminary scoping process for the proposed project,the NYS OPRHP was contacted in regards to the potential of the proposed project to impact historic and/or prehistoric cultural resources. The NYS OPRHP response (see Appendix F, correspondence dated June 14, 2016 from Ms. Ruth Pierpont, NYS OPRHP)stated that"based upon this review, the New YorkSHPO has determined that no historic properties will be affected by this undertaking." A copy of the Phase IA Archeological Investigation report was submitted to the New York State (NYS) Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP). Following review of the Hartgen report, the NYS OPRHP response (See Appendix G, correspondence dated August 30, 2016 from Mr. Tim Lloyd, NYS OPRHP) stated that "I have reviewed the report entitled Phase IA Archaeological Investigation, Elizabeth Field Airport Improvements, Fishers Island, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. As per our previous letter dated June 14, 2016, SHPO continues to recommend that no historic properties will be affected by this undertaking." Tribal Resources Based on a review of the USEPA Region 2 Tribal Program website48, there are eight federally-recognized Indian Nation Tribes located at various locations throughout New York (see Appendix E). Based on a review of the Federal Lands and Indian Reservations provided by the National Atlas(see Appendix E),there are no federally recognized tribal lands located within the vicinity of the airport49. In addition, based on a review of the NYS Coastal Boundary Map50 (see Appendix E), there are no state recognized Native American lands located within the vicinity of the Airport. 48 USEPA Region 2 Tribal Program.Accessed on:August 1,2016.Available at:https-//www epa gov/tribal/region-2-tribal-program 19 USGS, The National Map, Federal Lands and Indian Reservations, New Jersey. Accessed September 14, 2016. Accessible at: IMP. small scale printable fedlands.hhnl,ili.;l 50 NYS DOS,NYS Coastal Boundary Map.Accessed on:May 18,2016.Available at:https.//appext20.dos.ny.gov/coastal map public/map.aspx Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 3-27 1 14-AFfO4Co z' 'o National Historic Landmarks Based on a review of the National Park Service online database51,there are no National Historic Landmarks (NHLs) located within the study area (see Appendix E). Based on the information detailed above, the proposed project would have no impact on historic or archeological resources, national historic landmarks, or tribal resources.Therefore, no further discussion in regards to historical, architectural, archeological, and cultural resources will be included within this EA. 3.4.8 Land Use Land use describes the current designated use of a parcel of land (e.g., agricultural use, commercial use, residential use). Land use determinations are reserved for local governments and are used in a planning context to identify on a neighborhood to regional basis what they are surrounded by. Local governments commonly control the use of specific parcels of land by zoning. Zoning refers to an ordinance that allows or restricts the location and development of buildings or structures in a specific area. The objective of compatible land use planning and zoning is to encourage development of compatible land uses such as industrial and commercial uses near airports, and residential and public uses further from airports. Structures or other man-made features could potentially become hazards to air navigation, result in electronic interference with navigation aids, or become wildlife attractants. Compatible land use guidelines and regulations regarding public airports are contained in 14 CFR Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning; FAA AC 150/5050-6, Airport Land Use Compatibility Planning; and FAA AC 150/5020-1, Noise Control and Compatibility Planning for Airports. Existing Land Use Current land use in the vicinity of the Airport are shown on Figure 3-3. Land uses surrounding the Airport include residential, institutional,vacant, recreation and open space, underwater land,and waste handling and management.According to the Town of Southold website 52,the Airport is identified as: Parcel: 1000- 12.4-18; Class:Air Transportation; Land Use:Transportation. Land use within airport property(including the proposed project areas) is identified as transportation. 51 National Park Service.National Register of Historic Places Program,Spreadsheet of NHLs.Accessed on:May 23,2016.Available at: https://www.nps.gov/nr/researchZ 12 Town of Southold,N.Y.Tax Parcel Inquiry.Accessed on July 25,2016.Available at: http://tos.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Solutions/s2.html?appid=lb4d461a4ebc440bal9d25e98eb3fa90 Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 3-28 o`�gUfFO(KCo.. Gf2. z s Future land Use The proposed project involves rehabilitation or improvements within the Airport property and will not cause a change to the Airports current "Transportation" land use designation or a change to current land uses surrounding the Airport. Zoning According to the Town of Southold website53, the Airport is located within an R-400, Residential Low Density (10 acre) zoning district. The proposed project will not require a change to current zoning ordinances. Information that was reviewed on the Town of Southold website is included within Appendix E. Based on the information detailed above, the proposed project would not cause an impact or change to existing land use designations on or surrounding the airport property and would not require a change to current zoning ordinances. In addition, the proposed project does not include the type of development that would attract birds and wildlife (i.e., solid waste landfills, wastewater treatment facilities, spoil containment areas, etc.). Given the information included above, the proposed project would not impact land use and no further discussion in regards to land use will be included within this EA. 53 Town of Southold,N.Y.Zoning Maps(Map 4—Fishers Island).Accessed on:July 25,2016.Available at: http://www.southoldtownny gov/index.aspx7NID=401 Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 3-29 pF SOUTJ Legend �►; ' i Proposed Project Areas QAirport Property Line A t / antic Ocean Low Density Residential Medium Density Residential _ I High Density Residential _ - Commercial - Industrial - Institutional ® Recreation and Open Space Agricultural .� ?; Vacant / Transportation Utilities ® Waste Handling and Management Underwater Land 2 + U) .� •#40 0 250 500 9r'f.',`�. Feet o t� '•�.��•� ��...�` �.� ;►' 1 inch = 500 feet Q ~`"�-..� �`� �•. When printed at 11"x17" Date 8/30/2016 CBSa � %%W000 COMPANIES: � 4 `o w Elizabeth Field 0 Airport Town of Southold Atlantic Ocean Fishers Island, New York 0 Landuse Map Figure 3-3 g !-age courtesy of USGS Earthstar Geographics S10'; 2016 Microsoft Corporation SUFF4(A'�, . a 3.4.9 Natural Resources and Energy Supply According to Chapter 10 of the Desk Reference, natural resources and energy supply provides an evaluation of a project's consumption of natural resources (such as water, asphalt, aggregate,wood, etc.) and use of energy supplies (such as coal for electricity; natural gas for heating; and fuel for aircraft, commercial space launch vehicles, or other ground vehicles). Energy resources analyzed in this section include electricity, water and sewer. Electricity at the airport is supplied by Fishers Island Electric Corporation (FIEC).The island is served power via two under-water submarine distribution cables. According to information within the report entitled Sustaining Fishers Island (March 2014, Yale University), recent studies have indicated that there are no near-term capacity issues related to electricity on Fishers Island. Operation of the new 300 sq.ft.terminal building and the 11,250 sq. ft. hangar will result in a small increase in the demand for electricity. The additional electric service would be adequately supplied by FIEC and would not impact electricity supply to other customers in the service area.Operation of the new buildings will not create a significant demand for electricity. The study area is included within the only area (referred to as the "fort area")on the Island that is served by a community septic system. According to the Sustaining Fishers Island report, this system can accommodate a 30% increase from the current population that it serves. Operation of the new terminal building and private hangar may result in a slight increase in the discharge of wastewater (from their respective restrooms)into the sewer collection system.Since both of the proposed buildings are intended to serve existing users of the airport, additional wastewater discharge is expected to be minimal and operation of the new buildings will not exceed the capacity of the community septic system. Water, including potable and fire protection water, is supplied by the Fishers Island Water Works Corporation through a distribution system containing approximately 22 miles of underground water piping. The source of water for the FI Water Works Corporation is groundwater pumped from two wells located in the Middle Farms area that are drilled into the glacial aquifer beneath Fishers Island. A backup water supply to the wells is surface water from Barlow Pond and Middle Farms and Treasure Ponds utilized during dry weather periods. None of the proposed project areas are located near the groundwater wells or the backup water supply wells.Therefore, no impact to these wells will occur as a result of the proposed project. Potable water and other indoor and/or outdoor water will be supplied by the Fishers Island Water Works Corporation which has ample capacity to serve the proposed facilities. Operation of the new buildings will not create a significant demand for water. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 3-31 Use of the proposed terminal building and private hangar are intended to benefit existing users of the airport and will not result in the addition of any new passenger vehicles or aircraft operations and will not result in an increase in fuel consumption. Overall, the proposed project would not exceed available or future natural resource or energy supplies. Additionally,the proposed project would not involve a need for unusual materials or those in short supply. Therefore,there would be no significant impact to energy supplies and natural resources from operation of the proposed project. No further discussion in regard to natural resources and energy supply will be included within this EA. 3.4.10 Noise and Noise Compatible Land Use Noise According to Chapter 11 of the Desk Reference, noise is considered unwanted sound that can disturb routine activities (e.g., sleep, conversation, student learning) and can cause annoyance. Aviation noise primarily results from the operation of fixed and rotary wing aircraft, such as departures, arrivals, overflights, taxiing, and engine run-ups. Since the proposed project does not involve a change in fleet mix or modifications to the runway dimensions, a noise analysis and assessment of potential noise impacts would not be required and noise related impacts are not anticipated. Compatible Land Use The compatibility of existing and planned uses in the vicinity of an airport is usually associated with the extent of the airport's noise impacts, as described in Chapter 11 of the Desk Reference. However, the compatibility of land uses in the vicinity of an airport may also need to be assessed to ensure those uses do not adversely affect safe aircraft operations. Examples of such land uses that may adversely affect those operations include municipal landfills, wildlife refuges, wetland mitigation that may attract wildlife species hazardous to aviation, and unrestricted height zoning. Noise Related Compatibility Since the proposed project will not require a noise analysis to assess noise impacts, noise related land use compatibility impacts are not anticipated. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 3-32 ��`oyniitic�c . Construction Noise During construction, noise would be generated by construction vehicles and machinery. Noise impacts would be restricted to the immediate vicinity of the proposed project areas which are all located on airport property. Noise impacts associated with construction would be temporary in nature and can be maintained below threshold levels by requiring construction contractors to limit construction to daylight hours and weekday time periods and to require industry standard noise abatement controls for all construction machinery. With those restrictions in-place and compliance with local noise ordinances, no significant noise impacts associated with the proposed project are expected. Wildlife Hazards& Compatible Land Use In August 2007, the FAA released Advisory Circular No. 150/5200-33B, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or Near Airports. The advisory circular provides guidance on locating certain land uses, including wetlands creation, that have the potential to attract wildlife considered hazardous to airport operations on or within the vicinity of public-use airports. The proposed project does not involve wetland creation/mitigation, municipal landfills, or wildlife refuges. Since the proposed project is not expected to attract wildlife considered hazardous to airport operations or involve a change in flight patterns; there would be no impacts associated with compatible land uses. No further discussion in regard to noise and noise compatible land use will be included within this EA. 3.4.11 Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice, and Children's Environmental Health and Safety Risks According to FAA Order 1050.1F and FAA Order 5050.413, the FAA must evaluate proposed airport development actions to determine if they would cause social impacts, including effects on transportation/traffic, health and safety risks to children, socioeconomic impacts, and assessment of the potential to cause disproportionate and adverse effects on low-income or minority populations. This section provides an overview of the existing socioeconomic conditions in and near the project area and identifies low-income and minority populations. Socioeconomic Conditions The socioeconomic character of an area includes its population, housing, and economic activities. Socioeconomic changes may occur when a project directly or indirectly changes any of these elements. Table 3-5 presents a comparison of the socioeconomic characteristics of Fishers Island, the Town of Southold, and Suffolk County. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 3-33 Table 3-5: Population, Housing, & Economic Statistics Suffolk Fishers Island' Town of i id ' County' Population and Rave Statistics Population 236 21,968 1,493,350 White' 96.2% 84.8% 71.6 Black or African American' 0.8% 2.7% 7.4 American Indian' NA 0.1% 0.4% Asian' 0.8% 0.8% 3.4% Native Hawaiian/Pacific NA 0.1% Z% Islander' Two or more races' 1.7% 1.5% 2.4% Hispanic'- 0.8% 10.8% 16.5% Housing Statistics Housing Units 622 15,377 569,985 Owner occupied 9.6% 82.5% 79.3% Seasonal, Recreational,or 78% NA NA Occasional Use Economic aml Employment Median Household Income $67,045 $83,559 $88,323 %families below poverty 2.3% 5.3% 7.7% level Mean travel time to work(in 25.0 28.0 31.1 minutes) Source:US Census Bureau,QuickFacts,April 1,2010 Census data USA City Facts—data provided by the 2010 U.S.Census Note: NA—Information Not Reported 'Includes persons reporting only one race 2Hispanics may be of any race,so also are included in applicable race categories Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 3-34 �o`OgUFFO(KpoG s2' As shown in Table 3-5: ■ Since the airport is located on Fishers Island, the study area is predominately white at 96.2% and does not include a minority concentration greater than 1.7%. This trend is relatively consistent with that of Suffolk County(71.6%white, no minority concentrations greater than 16.5%)and the Town of Southold (84.8%white, no minority concentrations greater than 10.8%). ■ The percentage of families living below the poverty level on Fishers Island is 2.3%.The percentage of families living below the poverty level in the Town of Southold (5.3%) and in Suffolk County (7.7%) is slightly higher than on Fishers Island. ■ While the majority of housing units within the Town of Southold and Suffolk County are owner occupied, less than 10% of the housing units within the study area are owner occupied. This is consistent with the fact that Fishers Island is primarily a vacation community with approximately 300 full-time residents and a summer population of several thousand. ■ The Median household income for Fishers Island is reported at$67,045 with an approximate 100 %employment rate.This is similar to the Town of Southold which has a median household income of $83,559 with an approximate 92% employment rate. Suffolk County reports a median household income of$88,323 with an approximate 95%employment rate. Environmental Justice Communities The USEPA 54 and the NJDEP55 defines environmental justice (EJ) as: "the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies." The Desk Reference incorporates the USEPA definition of environmental justice (EJ). According to the USEPA, fair treatment means that no group of people, including a racial,ethnic,or a socioeconomic group,should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of federal, state, local, and tribal programs and policies." EJ considers the potential of Federal actions to cause disproportionate and adverse effects on low-income or minority populations and ensures no low-income or minority population bears a disproportionate burden of effects resulting from Federal actions. Table 3-6 presents information on EJ populations within the study area. s"USEPA.Environmental Justice.Last Updated on October 20,2015.Accessed on May 4,2016.Available at: http//www.epa.gov/environmental ustice/ ss NJDEP.Environmental Protection through Public Involvement.Accessed on:May 4,2016.Available at:http://www.ni.gov/dep/el/index.htmi Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 3-35 in 0`0&'��1044,,o. S� Table 3-6: Environmental Justice Populations Median Area Total Population Population Population Income Poverty Level Fishers Island 236 96.2% 3.8% $67,045 2.3% Town of Southold 21,968 84.8% 15.2% $83,559 5.3% Suffolk County 1,493,350 71.6% 28.4% $88,323 7.7% Source:US Census Bureau,QuickFacts,April 1,2010 Census data USA City Facts—data provided by the 2010 U.S.Census As established in NYSDEC Commissioner Policy 29 on Environmental Justice and Permitting (CP-29)16, potential EJ Areas, as defined by the NYSDEC, had populations that met or exceeded at least one of the following statistical thresholds: ■ At least 51.1%of the population in an urban area reported themselves to be members of minority groups; or ■ At least 33.8% of the population in a rural area reported themselves to be members of minority groups; or ■ At least 23.59% of the population in an urban or rural area had household incomes below the federal poverty level. A review of the EPA Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool, EJSCREEN57, was conducted to analyze the potential for environmental justice areas located within the project area. EPA describes EJSCREEN as an environmental justice mapping and screening tool that provides EPA with a nationally consistent dataset and approach for combining environmental and demographic indicators. According to EJSCREEN, Fishers Island has a 0%minority population and a 6%low-income population (see Appendix E). This places these indexes for the study area (i.e., Fishers Island) below the average for New York State (43% minority, 33% low income) and the USA(37% minority, 35% low income). Environmental Justice As previously mentioned, the proposed project is taking place on Fishers Island, entirely within the boundary of the Airport property. As shown in Table 3-6, Fishers Island does not include a minority concentration or a low-income community that meet the NYSDEC definition of an environmental justice area. Review of the populations in the study area concluded that no disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental impacts to minority and/or low-income populations have been identified se NYSDEC.DEC Environmental Justice Policy CP-29.Accessed on:August 4,2016.Available at:http//www.dec.ny.aov/public/36929.html 57 EPA.Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool,EJSCREEN.Accessed on August 4,2016.Available at https://www.epa.gov/e6screen Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 3-36 (-10FORt-_ _ as a result of the proposed project. Furthermore, since no established communities would be displaced as a result of the proposed project and no community of any demographic description would be adversely affected by the proposed project, no adverse EJ issues would occur. Children's Environmental Health and Safety Risks According to Chapter 12.3 of the Desk Reference, environmental health risks and safety risks' mean risks to health or to safety that are attributable to products or substances that the child is likely to come in contact with or ingest (such as the air we breathe, the food we eat, the water we drink or use for recreation,the soil we live on, and the products we use or are exposed to). The proposed project will not create or make more readily available products or substances that contact or ingestions through air, food, drinking water, recreational waters, or soil could harm children. As a result,there will be no significant impacts to children's health or safety. Socioeconomics According to FAA Order 1050.11', social impacts to be considered are generally those associated with relocation or other community disruption, transportation, planned development, and employment. The types of social impacts that potentially arise are: ■ Extensive resident relocation (and whether sufficient replacement housing is available). ■ Extensive community business relocation (and whether that would create severe economic hardship for the affected communities). ■ Disruption of planned development. ■ Disruptions of local traffic patterns that would substantially reduce the level of service of the roads serving the airport and its surrounding communities. • Substantial loss in the community tax base. ■ EJ issues. ■ Children's environmental health and safety risks. Relocation of Residences or Businesses The proposed project is taking place entirely within the boundary of airport property and does not include the relocation of any residences or businesses. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 3-37 o��gtlFFO[�Co._, Disruption of local traffic patterns The proposed project includes improvements to the airport access road which is located entirely within the boundary of airport property. The proposed project would not disrupt local traffic patterns or substantially reduce the levels of service of the roads serving the airport and its surrounding community. Loss in Community Tax Base The proposed project is taking place on airport property and would not cause a loss to the community tax base. Construction The proposed project would induce temporary positive secondary impacts within the region as a result of construction activity. These impacts would benefit the area and surrounding communities during construction by increasing employment opportunities and expenditures on local services and materials. Employment related to the proposed project construction is most likely to come from local workers and trades and would not cause local population growth or a shift in population movement. Overall, the temporary change to the local employment and economic activity expected as a result of the proposed project construction would be positive. Given the above information,the proposed project will not result in significant impacts to socioeconomics, environmental justice, or children's health and safety risks. No further discussion in regard to socioeconomic, environmental justice, or children's environmental health and safety risks will be included within this EA. 3.4.12 Visual Effects According to Chapter 13 of the Desk Reference, visual effects deal broadly with the extent to which the proposed project or alternative(s) would either: 1) produce light emissions that create annoyance or interfere with activities; or 2) contrast with, or detract from, the visual resources and/or the visual character of the existing environment. Visual effects can be difficult to define and assess because they involve subjectivity.The Desk Reference defines the following visual effects: ■ Light emissions include any light that emanates from a light source into the surrounding environment. Examples of sources of light emissions include airfield and apron flood lighting, navigational aids, terminal lighting, parking facility lighting, and roadway lighting ■ Visual resources include buildings, sites, traditional cultural properties, and other natural or manmade landscape features that are visually important or have unique characteristics. Visual resources may include structures or objects that obscure or block other landscape features. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 3-38 � 4 ■ Visual character refers to the overall visual makeup of the existing environment where the proposed project and alternative(s) would be located. For example, areas in close proximity to densely populated areas generally have a visual character that could be defined as urban,whereas less developed areas could have a visual character defined by the surrounding landscape features, such as open grass fields, forests, mountains, or deserts, etc. Light Emissions Existing sources of light within the study area include airfield and apron flood lighting, navigational aids, obstruction lighting, building and parking facility lighting, and roadway lighting. No new light emissions would result from the proposed runway pavement rehabilitation projects, the entrance road improvement project,or from on-airport obstruction removal.Although construction of the new terminal building and private hangar development would include new external and internal lighting,the proposed projects are taking place within the boundary of the airport property and would not create an annoyance to people in the vicinity of the Airport or interfere with their normal activities. Given that the airport does not have a history of lighting related complaints,all work is taking place within the airport property, and new construction would be completed in compliance with local zoning ordinances and building codes, there would be no significant lighting impacts as a result of the proposed project. Visual Resources and Character As described above,the proposed project is taking place within the boundary of the Airport property and would not cause a change to the current visual character of the site.The proposed project is intended to improve and maintain Airport facilities.Given that all work is taking place within airport property and new construction would be completed in compliance with local zoning codes and site plan review;there would be no significant visual resource or character impacts as a result of the proposed project. Construction Light emissions and visual impacts from construction equipment would be temporary. The construction impacts related to light emissions and visual impacts would not exceed the threshold for significance. No further discussion in regard to visual effects will be included within this EA. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 3-39 O,pFFO(,rCo 3.4.13 Water Resources Water resources generally include surface water,groundwater,floodplains,wetlands,and wild and scenic rivers. As discussed in Chapter 14 of the Desk Reference, water resources are important in providing drinking water and in supporting, recreation, transportation and commerce, industry, agriculture, and aquatic ecosystems. Surface Water Resources According to the Desk Reference, surface water includes streams, lakes, rivers, ponds, estuaries, and oceans. Based on field surveys, a review of United States Geological Survey (USGS) mapping, and interpretation of available aerial photography, there are three surface waters located within the study area (i.e., within Airport property). Based on review of the NYSDEC Environmental Map, the USFWS NWI Map, and C&S's wetland delineation, two of the surface waters are classified as freshwater ponds; one is classified as estuarine/marine deepwater; and all three are considered wetlands. As shown on Figure 3- 4, none of the surface waters identified within the study area are within the limits of the proposed project areas. Although not within the study area (i.e., airport property), it should be noted that the Atlantic Ocean is located along the southern and western airport boundary. Stormwater Runoff Existing grades at the Airport are relatively flat. Most Stormwater infiltrates directly back into the ground given the sandy soil conditions, however some stormwater is collected in drainage structures located around the Airport. Drainage The existing drainage system at the airport consist of a network of pipes which run parallel to both runways. There are also underdrain pipes located below the subgrade of the runway pavement to help drain the pavement section. These drainage pipes connect to drainage structures which removes water from the airfield. Potential impacts to surface waters will be assessed in Chapter 4 (Environmental Consequences) of this report. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 3-40 2. o o��OF SOUpyOlo^;. Legend QAirport Property Line Project Areas ' Runway 12-30 Rehabilitation Estuarine and Marine 0 Runway 7-25 Rehabilitation Freshwater Pond (PABHh) Deepwater E1ABL p ( Obstruction Mitigation Areas Airport Entrance Road Improvements - Terminal Building Construction Private Hangar Development t A � a x E O N N z 0�is c ,b N T LL _N U ryl N O a` N 0 250 500 N Feet 0 Q 1 inch = 500 feet U When printed at 11"x17" E Date 8/30/2016 0 Cas c a U s... 0 COMPANIES- L! 0 Elizabeth Field Airport Town of Southold 0 D Fishers Island, New York 0 U) 0 Surface Waters Freshwater Pond (PUBHh) Map ry m 0 Figure 3-4 LL I •u •r i_ -I �� � I. i-r.. .g ..i. :O��gUFFO(�COG ©s Groundwater Resources Groundwater is the subsurface water that occupies the space between sand, clay, and rock formations. An aquifer is the geologic layers that store or transmit groundwater, such as to wells, springs, and other water sources. The Airport is located over the Nassau-Suffolk Sole Source Aquifer. According to the Town of Southold's Comprehensive Plan, the Town (which would include the study area) depends on this aquifer for its potable (drinkable) water supply.As previously mentioned, the source of potable water on Fishers Island is groundwater pumped from two wells that are drilled into this aquifer. Critical Environmental Area In an effort to protect drinking water, Fishers Island was designated a Critical Environmental Area (CEA) by Suffolk County. To be designated a CEA, an area must have an exceptional or unique character with respect to one or more of the following: ■ A benefit or threat to human health; ■ A natural setting (i.e., fish and wildlife habitat, forest and vegetation, open space, and areas of important aesthetic or scenic quality); ■ Agricultural, social, cultural, historic, archeological, recreational, or educational values; or ■ An inherent ecological, geological, or hydrological sensitivity to change that may be adversely affected by any change. Potential impacts to groundwater will be assessed in Chapter 4 (Environmental Consequences) of this report. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 3-42 o`�gUFFO(,yCO. z Floodplains Floodplains are lowland areas adjoining inland and coastal waters which are periodically inundated by flood waters, including flood-prone areas of offshore islands. Floodplains are often discussed in terms of the 100-year flood or base flood. The 100-year flood is a flood having a 1 percent chance of occurring in any given year. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is responsible for mapping known floodplains and publishing these maps as Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS). Based on review of the FIRMS for the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York (Community Panel Numbers: 36103C0018H, 36103C0019H, 36103C0106H, and 36103C0107H), several of the proposed project areas are located entirely within or in a portion-of the 100-year floodplain or the 500-year floodplain (see Figure 3-5). Table 3-7 presents a list of the proposed ACIP projects (i.e. proposed project) and identifies the portion (acreage) of the project located within 100-year floodplains. Table 3-7: Project Areas Located in 100-Year Floodplains Total Project Area Project Proposed F IIFloodplain (acres) (acres) Runway 12-30 Pavement Rehabilitation 6.3 6.3 Runway 7-25 Pavement Rehabilitation 2.5 2.5 Obstruction Removal 1.39 0.67 Private Hangar Development 3.9 0.36 Terminal Building Construction 0.39 0.0 Entrance Road Improvements 0.27 0.0 Total Proposed Project 14.75 9.83 Source:C&S Analysis 2016 Potential impacts to floodplains will be assessed in Chapter 4(Environmental Consequences)of this report. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 3-43 � IV SO ro s Legend Al 40 Airport Floodzone 00 500K Project Areas Runway 12-30 Rehabilitation -25 Rehabilitation Runway 7 Obstruction Mitigation Areas Id Airport Entrance Road �TL.�: Improvements � BuildingConstruction it- Private Hangar Development y®]a r 10 li�a7� � 1 1• • •• • ,+ 1 1 •• • • 1 1 • • • • f '/' ` 100, 0 250 500h AV /' _ • - '' Feet 1110%r1 inch = 500 feet /fes/41,&Z r When printed at 11"x17" Date 8/30/2016 or CBSr COMPANIES 06 IN • - - • 1 11 • • 1 11 i • • 1 1 1• bifl� �iiio��:�rrt�a-���l-9JJ��= -��;a�� ..o a�3 �J�9�ui�U��r�rr.�Q�e •�-�'�xiu s2: Wetlands Wetlands are areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Based on state and federal wetlands mapping (see Figure 3-6), there are both state and federally regulated wetland areas located within Airport property. A wetland delineation was conducted within and around proposed project areas by C&S in May 2016.The delineation was completed consistent with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, Northcentral and Northeast Region, Version 2.0 and the 1995 NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands Delineation Manual. During delineation,three wetlands(Wetland A,Wetland B,and Wetland C)were identified(see Figure 3-6)within the 135-acre wetland study area. Wetlands A and C are regulated by both the USACE and the NYSDEC. Wetland B is a USACE jurisdictional wetland. A copy of the Wetlands and Waterways Delineation Report prepared by C&S, is included in Appendix H. During the project scoping process,the NYSDEC was contacted in regards to the potential of the proposed project to impact state regulated wetlands and/or waterways. The NYSDEC response stated that "the proposed project will require a Tidal Wetlands permit and may require a Freshwater Wetlands permit from this agency." The NYSDEC response also stated that "trimming, excavating, and re-grading vegetated portions of tidal and freshwater wetland adjacent areas are regulated activities pursuant to the Tidal and Freshwater Wetlands Acts. The removal of vegetation and/or grading of a wetland adjacent area can substantially alter surface water drainage and flow patterns and can increase erosion"(see Appendix F, correspondence dated June 13, 2016 from Ms. Sherri Aicher, NYSDEC Region 1). Based on C&S's wetland delineation and review of the USFWS NWI Map and NYSDEC Environmental Map, there are no wetlands located within proposed project areas. However, some project areas are located within the boundary of the 100-foot freshwater wetland buffer area and within the 300-foot tidal wetland buffer. Table 3-8 presents a list of the proposed ACIP projects and identifies the portion (acreage) of the project located within wetland buffer areas. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 3-45 1� Me Table 3-8: Project Areas Located in Wetland Areas Total Project Project Tidal Wetiand-300' State Freshwater Proposed Project Area Buffer Area II Buffer Limits (acres) Area (acres) (acres) Runway 12-30 Pavement Rehabilitation 6.3 2.65 0.0 Runway 7-25 Pavement Rehabilitation 2.5 0.92 0.0 Obstruction Removal 1.39 1.05 0.005 Private Hangar Development 3.9 0.0 0.0 Terminal Building Construction 0.39 0.0 0.0 Entrance Road Improvements 0.27 0.0 0.0 Total Proposed Project 14.75 4.62 0.005 Source:C&S Analysis 2016 Potential impacts to wetlands will be assessed in Chapter 4 (Environmental Consequences) of this report. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 3-46 , / / �, t �* l Legend Airport Property Line 1 1 C&S Delineated Wetlands �� /� '�►� r" — C&S Delineated Wetlands 100-ft A t ! antic Ocean ` L--- Buffer NYSDEC Wetlands ,E L NYSDEC Wetlands 100-ft Buffer Tidal Wetlands-SM (Coastal _)Shoals, Bars and Mudflats) ..g r Tidal Wetlands 300-ft Buffer r� w �(�� ♦� f `,'� NWI(Federal)Wetlands 4 r12- i Project Areas ti -��_ ✓r�� Runway 12-30 Rehabilitation F j /`~~ ' WETLAND C •� /� ' Runway 7-25 Rehabilitation Obstruction Mitigation Areas 1 ,�f•/' =— Airport Entrance Road Improvements Terminal Budding Construction \\ ` WETLD A Private Hangar Development AN ,' � + • 2.65 ac within ' . ( N 0.16 ac with' / Tidal Wetlands 0 250 500 Tidal Wetlands'' Feet 0.005 ac within 300-ft Buffer 1 inch = 500 feet C&5 Delineated Wetlands .fir 300-ft Buffer When printed at 11"x17" E ---r��""""'^"" Date 10/17/2016 W 100-ft Buffer F.1 ac within p ` Tidal Wetlands Cas \ ' COMPANIES 300-ft Buffer ,���� Tidal Wetlands ;�.� _ Elizabeth Field - WETLAND Airport Town of Southold S c Ocean Fishers Island, New York O - Wetlands ML Map 0 Figure 3-6 a � • o`OgUFFO[K� .. Wild and Scenic Rivers Wild and scenic rivers are those rivers having remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish, wildlife, historic, or cultural values as defined by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Based on a review of the National Park Service Wild and Scenic Rivers Program website58 there are no federally-designated wild and scenic rivers on or adjacent to Airport property. In addition, based on a review of the NYSDEC website59 there are no state-designated wild, scenic, or recreational rivers on or adjacent to Airport property. Given this information, there will be no impact to Wild and Scenic Rivers. No further discussion in regards to wild and scenic rivers will be included within this EA. 3.4.14 Construction Impacts Construction Impacts from the proposed project could include such things as air quality impacts with regard to emissions from construction equipment and fugitive dust from exposed soil and soil erosion and/or water quality impacts due to erosion and subsequent sedimentation. As a result, the potential significance of construction impacts will be discussed in Chapter 4 (Environmental Consequences) within the respective environmental resource report section for which the construction impact is associated. 58 National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.Accessed on:December 9,2015.Available at:http//www rivers gov/new-york.php 59 NYSDEC.Wild,Scenic,and Recreational Rivers.Accessed on:December 9,2015.Available at:http-//www dec.nv.gov/permits/32739.html Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 3-48 ..00000000-- f.J - -1 7__"� CHAPTER 4—ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4.1 Introduction This chapter presents an assessment of the environmental impacts in the categories outlined in FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, as they relate to the development of the proposed project.An examination of applicable environmental impact categories is provided to determine if impacts caused by the proposed project are significant under NEPA and special purpose laws. Each environmental impact category has a corresponding threshold level beyond which the impact is determined to be significant and an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS) is required. However, in some circumstances, if sufficient mitigation measures are included as part of the proposed project in order to reduce the impacts below the threshold levels, an EIS may not be required. As discussed in Chapter 3 (Affected Environment), the No-Action and the proposed project would not affect the following environmental resource categories, as described in FAA Order 1050.1F • Department of Transportation Act, Section E Natural Resources and Energy Supply 4(f) ■ Noise and Noise Compatible Land Use ■ Farmlands ■ Visual Effects ■ Hazardous Materials, Pollution Prevention, ■ Wild and Scenic Rivers and Solid Waste ■ Socioeconomics, Environmental Justice, and ■ Historical,Architectural,Archaeological, and Children's Environmental Health and Safety Cultural Resources Risks ■ Land Use Based on the information detailed in Chapter 3 (Affected Environment), the proposed project has the potential to affect the following environmental resource categories, as described in FAA Order 1050.1F: ■ Air Quality ■ Water Resources—Wetlands, Floodplains, ■ Climate Change Surface Water, Groundwater ■ Biological Resources 0 Cumulative Impacts • Coastal Resources Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-1 ',WFIL' WOOOO 4.2 Air Quality Regulatory Setting In accordance with FAA requirements, air quality requires consideration under both the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Clean Air Act Under the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 U.S.C. § 7401-7671q), the USEPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate matter (PMIo and PM2.$), ozone, and lead. Under the CAA, if a proposed action is subject to Federal funding or approval, it must conform to the goals set forth for eliminating or reducing the number of violations of the NAAQS in the state or region in which the action is to take place.An area that violates a national primary or secondary NAAQS for one or more of the USEPA designated criteria pollutants is referred to as 'nonattainment'. According to the CAA, the NAAQS are applicable to all areas of the United States and associated territories. Each nonattainment area is required to have an applicable State Implementation Plan (SIP)that prescribes mitigation measures and timelines necessary to bring ambient concentrations of criteria pollutants below the NAAQS. When a nonattainment area successfully reduces criteria pollutant concentrations below the NAAQS, EPA re- designates the area a 'maintenance area'. For actions planned to occur in a nonattainment or maintenance area, the proposed impacts to air quality must conform to the conditions of the applicable SIP, also known as General Conformity. Conformity The General Conformity Rule ensures that federal actions comply with the NAAQS. In order to meet the CAA requirement, a federal agency must demonstrate that every action that it undertakes, approves, permits or supports will conform to the appropriate state implementation plan (SIP). The USEPA promulgated the initial conformity regulations in 199331 to assist federal agencies in complying with the SIP by specifying rules for two categories of federal actions: transportation actions and general actions. The two rules have separate and distinct applicability and evaluation requirements. Transportation conformity applies to highway and transit projects, while general conformity regulations apply to other federal actions that are not transportation projects, such as federal funding for maintenance and repair and new construction projects at existing airports. The General Conformity Rule, published under 40 CFR Part 93, applies only to an action that is federally-funded or federally-approved, which is the case for the proposed project at the Elizabeth Field Airport. Only pollutants causing the area to be designated as 3140 CFR Part 51 and Part 93 Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-2 �O��gUFfO(KCOG _ nonattainment or maintenance are relevant and evaluated under the Rule. The net increase in emissions of the applicable pollutants are compared against the threshold levels established in the Rule, known as the de minimis thresholds, published at 40 CFR 93.153(b)(1)-(b),Applicability Analysis. Under the General Conformity Rule, if the net increase in emissions due to a federal action equals or exceeds USEPA established de minimis thresholds, a General Conformity Determination would be required. NEPA In 1970, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its amendments, established a broad national policy to protect the quality of the human environment and provide for the establishment of a Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The act provides policies and goals to ensure that environmental considerations are given careful attention and appropriate weight in all decisions of the Federal Government. The NEPA environmental review process discloses these impacts on the human environment. As part of the NEPA process, the proposed action's impact on air quality is assessed by evaluating the impact of the proposed action on the NAAQS. The CEQ has indicated that climate should be considered in NEPA analyses. Significant Impact Threshold Potentially significant air quality impacts would occur if a proposed project would cause pollutant concentrations to exceed one or more of the NAAQS for any of the time periods analyzed or to increase the frequency or severity of any such existing violations.As documented within Chapter 3 (Section 3.4.1), Suffolk County is designated as a moderate nonattainment area for 8-hour ozone (2008) and a maintenance area for PM2 s(2006). It is important to note that ozone is not directly emitted from a source but is formed through the reaction of oxides of nitrogen (NO,,) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the presence of sunlight. Emissions of ozone are evaluated based on emissions of the ozone precursor pollutants, NO, and VOCs. Therefore, the applicability analysis for General Conformity for this project applies to NO x,VOC,and PM2.5.The remaining criteria pollutants(CO,SO2, NO2, lead,and PMlo)currently meet the NAAQS in Suffolk County. In addition to the respective nonattainment and maintenance designations for Suffolk County, it should also be noted that New York is part of the ozone transport region. The ozone transport region is defined as a single transport region for ozone [within the meaning of CAA Section 176A(a)], comprised of the States of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and the Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area that includes the District of Columbia (CAA Section 184). Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-3 Table 4-1 presents the applicable de minimis thresholds for pollutants based on their nonattainment status.As illustrated in Table 4-1,the de minimis threshold for the proposed project would be 50 tons per year for VOCs, and 100 tons per year for NO., and PM2.5. If the increase in emissions from the proposed project does not equal or exceed these thresholds,the action is assumed to comply with the Rule and no further analysis is required under CAA Section 176(c)(1). If the threshold levels are exceeded, a General Conformity Determination would be required. Table 4-1:Clean Air Act De Minimis Thresholds ThresholdNonattainment Area Maintenance Area Threshold Pollutant per . per Monoxide(CO) 100 100 Particulate Matter(PMio) 100 Moderate Nonattainment Area 100 Serious Nonattainment Area 70 Particulate Matter(PM2.5) Direct Emissions 100 100 502 100 100 N O x 100 100 VOC or Ammonia 100 100 Sulfur Dioxide(S02) 100 Nitrogen Dioxide(NO2) 100 Lead(Pb) 25 25 Ozone(03) VOC/NOX VOC/NOX Serious Nonattainment Area 50/50 Severe Nonattainment Area 25/25 Extreme Nonattainment Area 10/10 Inside an ozone transport region: 50/100 50/100 Outside an ozone transport region: 100/100 100/100 Source:40 CFR 93.153(b)(1)&(2) Methodology Conformity In order to determine if the proposed project would comply with the General Conformity Rule, an emissions inventory was conducted in accordance with FAA's Emissions and Air Quality Handbook Version 3 (July 2014). The purpose of the inventory was to compare the annual net increase in emissions as a result of the proposed project to the No Action Alternative. The proposed project would result in an Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-4 FOO increase in annual emissions from stationary sources associated with combustion of fuel oil for heating the new facilities (i.e., terminal building and private hangar) as well as a temporary increase in emissions from use of various construction equipment and travel by contractors. The proposed project will not change aircraft operations at the airport and will not cause a permanent increase in the number of vehicles from employees or passengers traveling to and from the airport.Therefore,the proposed project will not affect the emissions associated with transportation (vehicle) sources or the type and quantity of aircraft, ground support vehicles, and ground access vehicles currently operating at the airport. Operational (Stationary Source) Emissions Stationary source emissions are associated with the heating of buildings. The only heated building currently at the Airport is the 2,100 square-foot converted hangar (bike-rental shop) building. The proposed project includes construction of a private hangar and a new terminal building.Stationary source emissions are based on the estimated square footage of the buildings multiplied by the typical heating value of 60 Btu per square foot, a furnace efficiency of 90%, and the conservative estimate of the combustion sources operating approximately half the year (4,380 hours per year). The projected fuel oil usage was multiplied by the emission factors contained in USEPA document AP-42—Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Operations were assumed to begin the year following construction (refer to Table 1-2). Table 4-2 presents the calculated total annual operational emissions of nonattainment and maintenance parameters for existing and proposed buildings. Calculation results for stationary source emissions are included within Appendix I. Table 4-2:De Minimis Thresholds and Annual Stationary Source Emissions Voc NOx Project tons/year tons/year tons/year De Minimis Thresholds s0 100 100 Existing Building 0.001 0.040 0.001 Private Hangar 0.007 0.213 0.005 Terminal Building 0.00018 0.006 0.00013 Total Annual Operational Emissions 0.008 0.259 0.006 Total Annual Net Increase 0.007 0.219 0.005 Source:C&S Analysis 2016 As illustrated in Table 4-2, the total stationary source emissions of nonattainment or maintenance parameters would not result in increased emissions above applicable de minimis thresholds. For the No- Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-5 Action alternative,stationary sources associated with the new facilities(i.e.,terminal building and private hangar)were assumed to be zero since those facilities currently do not exist. Construction Emissions General Conformity Applicability must address the anticipated construction emissions by calendar year associated with the development. Therefore,construction emissions associated with the airport projects proposed for implementation in the period between 2018 and 2022 (refer to Table 1-2) were calculated using the software contained in the ACRP Report 102: Guidance for Estimating Airport Construction Emissions. ACRP Report 102 provides guidance and an interactive modeling tool, called Airport Construction Emissions Inventory Tool (ACEIT), to assist airports and other stakeholders in developing airport construction emission inventories 32. It should be noted that representatives from USEPA participated on the ACRP panel for the ACEIT modeling tool. The ACEIT software tool uses default emission factors from USEPA approved emission publications and models for non-road equipment and on-road vehicles. The two main emission factor models used to develop the Guidebook and ACEIT were the EPA's non-road equipment emissions model (NONROAD 2008a,July 2009) and the Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator(MOVES) (EPA2009 and 2012).As the name implies, NONROAD provided predictions of emissions inventories from which emission factors can be derived for equipment typically used for non-road (off-road) purposes. In contrast, MOVES was traditionally used to develop emission inventories and emission factors for on-road vehicles. However, MOVES 2014 incorporated non-road equipment emissions from NONROAD. It should be noted that USEPA has issued newer versions of the MOVES model since the release of ACEIT, however news bulletins for each new version of MOVES do not indicate a change in emission factors.Therefore,the emission factors within ACEIT are consistent with the latest version of MOVES. Both exhaust and particulate matter fugitive emission factors were developed using these models for non-road construction equipment and on-road vehicles that were incorporated into ACEIT. The NONROAD emission factors are in grams per horsepower-hour (g/HP-hr), while MOVES emission factors are in grams per mile (g/mi). ACEIT assumes the horsepower to be the average for each type of equipment. In order to be conservative, it was assumed that all equipment would be operating on diesel, with the exception of on-road passenger vehicles for construction employees which are assumed to operate on gasoline. There are a total of six projects planned in the time period between 2017 and 2022: rehabilitation of Runway 12-30, rehabilitation of Runway 7-25, airport entrance road improvements, terminal building construction, obstruction removal, and private hangar development. Since private 32 ACRP Report 102:Guidance for Estimating Airport Construction Emissions Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-6 o�OgUffOl A'Coo hangar development includes construction of the hangar,as well as access road and taxilane construction, the project was entered into ACEIT as three separate construction projects occurring within the same calendar year. The projects were modeled for the year construction is planned (refer to Table 1-2). In order to conservatively estimate emissions, it was assumed that construction on each project would start and end within one calendar year. ACEIT can model projects based on known equipment use information, or based on known project types. For this analysis, project types (i.e., construction of a building, parking lot, site work, etc.)that match the scope of the work were selected and the model automatically selected a standard mix of activities for the project type. For example, when the "hangar building' project type was selected for this project, typical construction activities such as concrete foundations, roofing, and masonry work were automatically selected.The user is later prompted to enter overall size information,such as the dimensions of a building or parking lot, as well as the overall cost of the project. These inputs are used to calculate an assumed construction equipment usage in hours,which is then converted to emissions. Based on the results of the ACEIT modeling software, Table 4-3 presents the expected annual construction emissions by year of nonattainment or maintenance pollutants as a result of the proposed project. ACEIT modeling results are included within Appendix I. Table 4-3:De Minimis Thresholds and Construction Emissions by Year Project VOC • De Minimis Threshold 50 100 100 2018 Obstruction Removal 0.057 0.163 0.013 2018 Private Hangar 1.900 2.460 0.124 Development 2018 total construction emissions 1.957 2.623 0.137 2019 Airport Entrance Road 0.631 0.732 0.029 Improvements 2019 total construction emissions 0.631 0.732 0.029 2020 RW 12-30 Rehabilitation 11.317 0.911 0.034 2020 total construction emissions 11.317 0.911 0.034 2021 Terminal Building 0.088 0.356 0.023 Construction 2021 total construction emissions 0.088 0.356 0.023 2022 Runway 7-25 4.263 0.526 0.019 Rehabilitation 2022 total construction emissions 4.263 0.526 0.019 Source:ACEIT Modeling Software,C&S Analysis 2016 Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-7 ��o�pgUFFO(,YCOGf _ f a For the No-Action alternative, construction emissions were assumed to be zero since no construction would occur. As illustrated in Table 4-3, the total construction emissions of nonattainment or maintenance parameters would not result in an increased emission above applicable de minimis thresholds in any one calendar year between 2018 and 2022 (i.e., construction years). Total (Operational and Construction) Emissions In order to account for the total increase in emissions for each calendar year from 2018 to 2022,the total operational emission increases associated with stationary sources were added to construction emissions for each year. Table 4-4 provides the total increase in emissions for nonattainment or maintenance parameters by year compared to the de minimis thresholds. Table 4-4:De Minimis Thresholds and Total Emissions by Year Year Project Voc NOx De Minimis Threshold 50 100 100 2018 Obstruction Removal 0.057 0.163 0.013 2018 Private Hangar Const. 1.900 2.460 0.124 2018 Existing Building 0.001 0.040 0.001 2018 total emissions 1.96 2.66 0.138 2019 Entrance Rd. Improvements 0.631 0.732 0.029 2019 Existing Building 0.001 0.040 0.001 2019 Stationary source-hangar 0.007 0.213 0.005 2019 total emissions 0.639 0.985 0.035 2020 RW 12-30 Rehabilitation 11.317 0.911 0.034 2020 Existing Building 0.001 0.040 0.001 2020 Stationary source-hangar 0.007 0.213 0.005 2020 total emissions 11.325 1.16 0.040 2021 Terminal Building Const. 0.088 0.356 0.023 2021 Existing Building 0.001 0.040 0.001 2021 Stationary source-hangar 0.007 0.213 0.005 2021 total emissions 0.096 0.609 0.029 2022 Runway 7-25 Rehabilitation 4.263 0.526 0.019 2022 Existing Building 0.001 0.040 0.001 2022 Stationary source-hangar 0.007 0.213 0.005 2022 Stationary source- 0.00018 0.006 0.00013 terminal building 2022 total emissions 1 4.27 1 0.785 1 0.025 Source:ACEIT Modeling Software,US Analysis 2016 Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-8 z fyoi Baa,. As shown in Table 4-4, the total (operational and construction) emissions of nonattainment or maintenance parameters would not result in an increased emission above applicable de minimis thresholds in any future calendar year. No further analysis is required under the General Conformity Rule and the proposed project would be presumed to conform to the state implementation plan. NEPA Under NEPA, federal agencies are required to assess the impacts federal actions may have on air quality and the human environment. As part of the NEPA process, the proposed action's impact on air quality is assessed by evaluating the impact of the proposed action on the NAAQS.The methodology for evaluating the need to conduct an air quality analysis is provided in the FAA document, Aviation Emissions and Air Quality Handbook Version 3 dated July 2014 (Air Quality Handbook). In accordance with procedures outlined in that document, the airport and the proposed project impacts to air quality were evaluated based on the following: Indirect Source Review New York State regulations for indirect sources apply only to the County of New York south of 60th Street. The proposed project is taking place in Suffolk County.Therefore, the proposed project does not require an indirect source review. General Conformity with SIP As detailed above (see Table 4-4),the increase in total (operational and construction) emissions is below applicable de minimis thresholds for nonattainment and maintenance parameters, therefore, the proposed project would be presumed to conform to the state implementation plan. NAAQS Assessment Since the proposed project would cause an increase in emissions,the FAA Air Quality Handbook requires completion of an emissions inventory. Based on the results of the ACEIT modeling software and stationary source emission calculations (see Appendix 1), Table 4-5 presents the expected emissions of all criteria pollutants. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-9 o`��pFFb(KC� � G12 Table 4-5:De Minimis Thresholds and Total Criteria Pollutant Emissions by Year Year Project VOC • • S02 De Minimis Threshold s0 100 100 100 100 100 2018 Obstruction Removal 0.057 0.163 0.013 0.045 0.233 0.001 2018 Private Hangar Cons. 1.900 2.460 0.124 0.385 3.433 0.012 2018 Existing Building 0.001 0.040 0.001 0.001 0.011 0.000 2018 total emissions 1.958 2.663 0.138 0.431 3.677 0.013 Airport Entrance 2019 0.631 0.732 0.029 0.093 1.461 0.005 Road Improvements 2019 Existing Building 0.001 0.040 0.001 0.001 0.011 0.000 Stationary source- 2019 0.007 0.213 0.005 0.005 0.059 0.003 hangar 2019 total emissions 0.639 0.985 0.035 0.099 1.531 0.008 Runway 12-30 2020 11.317 0.911 0.034 0.241 1.294 0.013 Rehabilitation 2020 Existing Building 0.001 0.040 0.001 0.001 0.011 0.000 Stationary source- 2020 0.007 0.213 0.005 0.005 0.059 0.003 hangar 2020 total emissions 11.325 1.164 0.040 0.247 1.364 0.016 Terminal Building 2021 0.088 0.356 0.023 0.061 0.307 0.001 Construction 2021 Existing Building 0.001 0.040 0.001 0.001 0.011 0.000 Stationary source- 2021 0.007 0.213 0.005 0.005 O.OS9 0.003 hangar 2021 total emissions 0.096 0.609 0.029 0.067 0.377 0.004 Runway 7-25 2022 4.263 0.526 0.019 0.135 0.724 0.006 Rehabilitation 2022 Existing Building 0.001 0.040 0.001 0.001 0.011 0.000 Stationary source- 2022 0.007 0.213 0.005 0.005 O.OS9 0.003 hangar Stationary source- 2022 0.00018 0.006 0.00013 0.00013 0.002 0.000 terminal 2022 total emissions 4.271 0.785 0.025 0.141 0.796 0.009 Source:ACEIT Modeling Software,C&S Analysis 2016 Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-10 Impacts Alternative 1: No-Action Under this alternative, no action is taken and there would be no increase in emissions from stationary sources, construction equipment,or travel by contractors.Therefore,this alternative would not cause an increase in criteria pollutant emissions from current levels. Alternative 2: Preferred Alternative As detailed above, the proposed project would result in an increase in emissions from stationary sources associated with combustion of fuel oil for heating new facilities(i.e.,terminal building and private hangar) as well as a temporary increase in emissions from use of various construction equipment and travel by contractors. Conformity As presented in Table 4-4, the total annual (operational and construction) emissions for non-attainment and maintenance parameters (NO,, VOCs, PMIS) are below the 100 tons per year de minimis threshold for nitrogen oxides and particulate matter and under the 50 tons per year threshold for volatile organic compounds. Therefore, no further analysis is required under the General Conformity Rule and the proposed project would be presumed to conform to the state implementation plan. NEPA As presented in Table 4-5,the net annual emissions resulting from the proposed project were below the de minimis threshold levels for all criteria pollutants. Therefore, no pollutant concentration levels that would exceed a NAAQS standard are expected. Given the information detailed above, as well as the fact that the proposed project would not have an effect on enplanements or aircraft operations at the airport and that de minimis thresholds are not exceeded, no significant impacts to air quality are anticipated. Best Management Practices Although no significant impacts to air quality are anticipated, there are a number of best management practices(BMPs)that are recommended to reduce the emissions of ozone precursors, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide. Any reduction in the volume of fuel combusted or electricity used will reduce emissions and promote sustainable measures. The following recommendations should be incorporated into the proposed project: Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-11 �Fl 1OF04 . ■ Design for all aspects of the project should seek to minimize emissions to the maximum extent practicable. ■ Use construction equipment that can operate on alternative fuels or electricity wherever possible to minimize emissions associated with diesel and gasoline powered equipment. ■ During operation of the proposed project, use hybrid or electric vehicles instead of petroleum based fuels, where practical. ■ Promote the use of public transportation or carpooling for both the construction and operation of the facility. ■ The development of the site should be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable sustainable organizations, such as LEED or ENVISION. ■ Limit unnecessary idling times on diesel powered engines. ■ Controlling construction dust by implementing a soil erosion sediment control plan that includes suppressing dust by spraying water on dirt piles and streets/roads and reducing dust-generating activities in periods of high winds. 4.3 Climate Change Regulatory Setting There are no federal or state standards for aviation-related greenhouse gas(GHG)emissions.The CEQ has indicated that climate should be considered in NEPA analyses. As noted by CEQ, "federal agencies, to remain consistent with NEPA, should consider the extent to which a proposed action and its reasonable alternatives contribute to climate change through GHG emissions and take into account the ways in which a changing climate over the life of the proposed project may alter the overall environmental implications of such actions" (CEQ December 18, 2014). Significant Impact Threshold Since there are no federal or state standards for aviation-related GHG emissions, there is no significant impact threshold for GHGs. Methodology GHG emissions were estimated using USEPA document AP-42—Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors and the ACEIT output for stationary sources and construction. It should be noted that AP-42 provides emission factors for carbon dioxide but no other GHGs such as nitrous oxide and methane. Based on the results of the ACEIT modeling software and stationary source emission calculations, Table 4-6 presents the expected increase in emissions of carbon dioxide by year. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-12 o`DypFFO(,�Co. 6s2 ti z Table 4-6:Greenhouse Gas Emission Increase by Year • Year Project Metric Tons/Year 2018 Obstruction Removal 86.293 2018 Private Hangar Development 1,490.372 2018 total emissions 1,576.665 2019 Airport Entrance Road Improvements 553.875 2019 Stationary source private hangar 264.460 2019 total emissions 818.335 2020 Runway 12-30 Rehabilitation 648.624 2020 Stationary source private hangar 264.460 2020 total emissions 913.084 2021 Terminal Building Construction 248.723 2021 Stationary source private hangar 264.460 2021 total emissions 513.183 2022 Runway 7-25 Rehabilitation 546.657 2022 Stationary source private hangar 264.460 2022 Stationary source terminal building 7.052 2022 total emissions 818.169 Source:ACEIT Modeling Software,C&S Analysis 2016 Impacts Alternative 1: No-Action Under this alternative,no action is taken and there would be no increase in GHG emissions from stationary sources, construction equipment, or travel by contractors. Therefore, this alternative would not cause an increase in greenhouse gases from current levels. Alternative 2: Preferred Alternative The proposed project would temporarily increase carbon dioxide emissions due to increased vehicle movements associated with construction equipment and travel by contractors as well as permanently increase annual carbon dioxide emissions associated with heating the new terminal building (7.052 tons/year CO2) and the new hangar building (264.460 tons/year CO2). As presented in Table 4-6, carbon dioxide emissions in 2018 would be the greatest for any single year with a total of 1,576.665 metric tons. As stated previously, there are no federal or state standards for aviation-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-13 �ao�OSUFFO(KcoG f2. Best Management Practices Although no significant impacts related to climate change are anticipated as a result of the proposed project, there are a number of BMPs that are recommended to reduce GHG emissions. The following recommendations should be incorporated into the proposed project: ■ Design for all aspects of the project should seek to minimize emissions to the maximum extent practicable. ■ Use construction equipment that can operate on alternative fuels or electricity wherever possible to minimize emissions associated with diesel and gasoline powered equipment. ■ During operation of the proposed project, use hybrid or electric vehicles instead of petroleum based fuels, where practical. ■ Promote the use of public transportation or carpooling for both the construction and operation of the facility. ■ The development of the site should be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable sustainable organizations, such as LEED or ENVISION. 4.4 Biological Resources Regulatory Setting Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act—The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, administered by the USFWS, protects bald and golden eagles from the unauthorized capture, purchase, or transportation of the birds, their nests, or their eggs. Any action that might disturb these species requires a permit from the USFWS, which authorizes limited, non-purposeful take of bald and golden eagles. Endangered Species Act—Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as amended, applies to federal agency actions and sets forth requirements for consultation to determine if the proposed project "may affect" a federally listed endangered or threatened species or habitat critical to that species. In addition, candidate species shall be identified in order to alert federal agencies of potential proposals or listings. In addition to federal regulations,6 NYCRR Part 182 Endangered and Threatened Species of Fish and Wildlife; Species of Special Concern, applies to New York. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act—The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 requires that federal agencies consult with the USFWS, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (in some instances), and appropriate state fish and wildlife agencies regarding the conservation of wildlife resources when proposed federal projects may result in control or modification of the water of any stream or other water body. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-14 �gtlF F04 ea , wz: �_- --- y"64e Migratory Bird Treaty Act—The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 protects migratory birds by prohibiting private parties (and federal agencies in certain judicial circuits) from intentionally taking, selling, or conducting other activities that would harm migratory birds, their eggs, or nests (such as removal of an active nest or nest tree), unless the Secretary of the Interior authorizes such activities under a special permit. Significant Impact Threshold FAA Order 1050.1F, provides FAA's significance threshold for biological resources (including fish, wildlife, and plants). A significant impact to biological resources would occur when: The USFWS or the NMFS determines that the action would be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a federally-listed threatened or endangered species,or would result in the destruction or adverse modification of federally- designated critical habitat. Based on FAA Order 1050.1F, the FAA has not established a significance threshold for non-listed species. Additional factors that should be considered in assessing impacts include whether the action would have the potential for: ■ A long term or permanent loss of unlisted plant or wildlife species (i.e., extirpation of the species from a large project area). ■ Adverse impacts to special status species(i.e.,state species of concern,species proposed for listing, migratory birds, bald and golden eagles)or their habitats. ■ Substantial loss, reduction, degradation, disturbance, or fragmentation of native species' habitats or their populations. ■ Adverse impacts on a species' reproductive success rates, natural mortality rates, non-natural mortality rates (e.g., road kills and hunting), or ability to sustain the minimum population levels required for population maintenance. Methodology As indicated in FAA Order 1050.1F,coordination should take place with the USFWS and other applicable federal, state, or local agencies that administer protection over fish, wildlife, and plant resources in order to determine the potential effect to federal and state listed threatened,endangered,or candidate species, or designated critical habitat areas. As previously discussed in Chapter 3 (Section 3.4.2 Biological Resources), a review of published data, correspondence with federal and state agencies, and field surveys (i.e., habitat assessment) have taken place as part of the EA process for the proposed project. This information will be used to assist in determining potential impacts to biological resources. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-15 ,O�gUFF�[A'COG `.c • yr r ____ Impacts Alternative 1: No-Action The No-Action Alternative would not change existing site conditions or habitats. As a result, there would be no impact to biological resources. Alternative 2: Preferred Alternative Figure 3-2 presents proposed project area limits and identifies the vegetative cover types and potential habitats found within each of the respective project areas. For example,the obstruction removal project proposed for the Runway 12 end primarily consists of 0.08 acres of successional shrubland and 0.26 acres of brushy cleared land which is potential habitat for Northern long-eared bat,large calyx goosefoot, purple milkweed, slender blue flag, northern gama grass, and sandplain gerardia. It should be noted that the information included on Figure 3-2 does not indicate that these species were observed within the proposed project limits, only that potential habitat for them exists within the project limits. Federally-Listed Threatened and Endangered Species Information obtained from the USFWS IPaC system and C&S's habitat assessment indicated that there was potential for two federally-listed threatened and endangered species to occur within the project limits (sandplain gerardia (flowering plant) and Northern long-eared bat (mammal)); in addition, information from the USFWS indicated that the sandy and pebble beach adjacent to the proposed project area is a breeding area for piping plover(see Appendix F- correspondence dated June 20, 2017 from Mr. David A. Stilwell, USFWS). Sandploin gerordia: Based on the USFWS website, the sandplain gerardia is considered a specialist plant that prefers dry, sandy and exposed mineral soil and native grasslands. With its pink or purple flowers that appear from mid-August to mid-October, sandplain gerardia responds well to disturbances like mowing or fire, which help to create open habitat. In addition to being a federally-listed species, the sandplain gerardia is also a NYS-listed endangered species, however, it was not identified by the NYNHP as having the potential to occur within the study area. This flowering plant was not observed during C&S's habitat survey. Although potential habitat for this plant was observed during the survey, given that the plant itself was not observed and that the NYNHP did not identify it as having the potential to occur; the presence of sandplain gerardia is not expected within proposed project areas. Given that sandplain gerardia is not expected to occur within proposed project areas and since construction activities related to vegetation removal would be completed during its non-flowering non-growing season (the period between October 31st and March 315`) no significant impact to the sandplain gerardia are anticipated. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-16 o�g11FF01KC0 Northern long-eared bats: According to the USFWS website, the Northern long-eared bat (NLEB) hibernates in caves and mines during the winter. After hibernation, NLEBs migrate to their summer habitat. Suitable summer habitat for the NLEB consists of a wide variety of forested/wooded habitats where they roost, forage, and travel and may also include some adjacent and interspersed non-forested habitats such as emergent wetlands and adjacent edges of agricultural fields, old fields and pastures.This includes forests and woodlots containing potential roosts (i.e., live trees and/or snags >_3 inches dbh that have exfoliating bark, cracks, crevices, and/or cavities), as well as linear features such as fencerows, riparian forests, and other wooded corridors. These wooded areas may be dense or loose aggregates of trees with variable amounts of canopy closure. Individual trees may be considered suitable habitat when they exhibit characteristics of suitable roost trees and are within 1,000 feet of other forested/wooded habitat. NLEB has also been observed roosting in human-made structures, such as buildings, barns, bridges, and bat houses;therefore,these structures should also be considered potential summer habitat. In addition to being a federally-listed species, the NLEB is also a NYS-listed threatened species, however, it was not identified by the NYNHP as having the potential to occur within the study area. Although potential habitat for the NLEB was observed during the survey, given that the NYNHP did not identify it as having the potential to occur; the presence of NLEB is not expected within proposed project areas. Since the NLEB is not expected to occur within proposed project areas and construction activities related to vegetation/tree removal will be completed during their hibernation period between October 315'and March 31St, no significant impact to the NLEB is anticipated. Piping Plover: According to the USFWS website, the piping plover are small, stocky shorebirds that uses wide,flat, open, sandy beaches with very little grass or other vegetation. Nesting territories often include small creeks or wetlands. The piping plover are migratory birds. In the spring and summer they breed in the northern United States and Canada. In the fall, plovers migrate south and winter along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico or other southern locations. In order to alert the public of the threatened status of the piping plover and to encourage protection of this species and its habitat, signage has been placed along the shoreline between the Runway 7 end and the Runway 30 end of the Airport. Based on C&S's May 2016 habitat survey, the project areas do not contain piping plover habitat and no Piping Plover were observed during the site visit. Since the proposed project would not result in an increase in aircraft utilizing the airport,there would be no increase in potential for in-air bird impacts or permanent increases in visual and auditory disturbances to the piping plover. Although no impact to the piping plover is expected as a result of the proposed project, construction activities related to vegetation removal will still be limited to the winter months (October 31St through March 311t) when birds would be expected to have migrated south to winter in Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-17 o��gUFFO(KCo. T warmer climates. In addition, during the summer months, construction equipment access will be limited to project and previously disturbed areas to avoid impacting potential bird nests that may be located in other areas on Airport property; no construction activities related to runway paving rehabilitation will take place between April 1 and September 1. Given this information, no significant impact to piping plover is anticipated. Critical Habitat As noted in Chapter 3 (Section 3.4.2), according to the USFWS IPaC system, there are no critical habitats located within the study area. State-Listed Threatened and Endangered Species Information obtained from the NYSDEC, the NYNHP, and C&S's habitat assessment indicated that there was potential for five state-listed threatened or endangered species(i.e.,vascular plants)to occur within the project limits (large calyx goosefoot, purple milkweed, slender blue flag, northern gama grass, and field beadgrass). Large Calyx Goosefoot:The large calyx goosefoot is an annual, erect herb usually less than 50 cm tall that is most common in eastern states from South Carolina north to New York and Massachusetts. In New York, the large calyx goosefoot has been most often found on rocky ocean beaches, and occasionally on adjacent pond shores, salt marshes and shrub thickets. According to the NYNHP, there are four existing populations that are restricted to the small area of Fishers Island. The large calyx goosefoot flowers in July and August and the fruits needed for identification, mature in September. Conservation strategies and management practices include controlling phragmites invasions in the salt marshes where it exists and preventing new incursions. Although this plant was not observed during the site visit, based on C&S's habitat survey there is potential habitat for this species within proposed project areas. However, based on review of the NYNHP Database Records Map(prepared October 30, 2015 by the NYNHP,Albany, NY and provided to C&S during previous airport project consultation), large calyx goosefoot is potentially present at the southeast corner of airport property, not within or near proposed project areas. Given that the large calyx goosefoot is therefore not expected to occur within proposed project areas and since construction activities related to vegetation/tree removal will be completed during its non-growing non-flowering season (period between October 315`and March 31St), no impact to the large calyx goosefoot is anticipated. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-18 A �`�y Field Beadgrass: a perennial grass, growing from short rhizomes,the stems are erect and from 40 to 120 centimeters tall, often with several growing together from the base. There are five existing populations but two of them have less than 50 plants. It occurs most commonly in damp meadows, fields, mowed roadsides, mowed grounds, and lawns. Conservation strategies and management practices indicate that since plants occur on the borders of roads and fields, the main threats to populations are improper mowing regimes, which may reduce plants if mowed too often or increase competition if not mowed often enough. This species needs disturbance to reduce competition from woody plants or more aggressive herbaceous plants but too much direct disturbance to the plants will reduce or eliminate the population. Its habitat could be disturbed in the non-growing season to open it up for seed germination and colonization but direct disturbance should be prevented during the growing season. The NYNHP correspondence identified this species along the mowed roadside of Ocean Avenue, west of Halcyon Road, on Fishers Island. Based on review of the NYNHP map, no potential field beadgrass areas are identified within Airport property and this plant was not observed during C&S's site visit. Given that field beadgrass is not expected to occur within proposed project areas and since construction activities related to vegetation/tree removal will be completed during its non-growing season (period between October 315`and March 31St), no impact to field beadgrass is anticipated. Purple Milkweed:The purple milkweed is a stout-stemmed, opposite-leaved, perennial herb, growing up to 1-meter-tall;there are ten existing populations and 22 historical occurrences but the populations at all but one site are fewer than 30 plants. In New York it has been found in a wide diversity of open habitats, from sedge meadows, wet fields, and fens, to dry oak woods, serpentine barrens, and hay fields. Conservation strategies and management practices indicate that purple milkweed populations are threatened by loss of habitat and by development and succession, especially by exotic invasive species. No purple milkweed was observed during the site visit. Based on review of the NYNHP Database Records map (dated October 30, 2015), purple milkweed and/or its habitat are potentially located in the area bound between the Runway 12 end and the Runway 7 end. Based on the NYNHP map, the only project area located within or near this potential purple milkweed area is related to tree clearing/vegetation removal proposed at the Runway 7 end. This includes up to 0.89 acres of temporary disturbance associated with up to 0.41 acres of vegetation removal and re- grading turf (dirt berm/mound) within this area. Since there is potential habitat for this plant, construction activities associated with obstruction removal at the Runway 7 end will be avoided during the purple milkweed's growing season (mid-April to mid-October). NYSDEC Freshwater and Tidal Wetlands Permits will be required for the obstruction removal project. The permits will address any necessary measures that should be taken to avoid potential impacts to purple milkweed. Since measures Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-19 �O`OgUFFO(k-CGG and/or restrictions as set forth by the NYSDEC Wetland permits will be adhered to during construction, no significant impact to the purple milkweed is anticipated. Slender Blue Flap:The slender blue flag is a perennial herb species growing from 30 to 80 centimeters tall from cordlike roots; there are 15 existing populations and about half of them have 100 plants or more. Its habitat includes a variety of open, wet, coastal habitats, moist/damp meadows and sandy or gravelly shores, marshes, and swamps and has been collected in sea level fens and the edges of salt marshes and brackish meadows,as well as from diverse disturbed habitats such as burned or scraped old fields,ditches, and roadside swales. Conservation strategies and management practices indicate that wetlands need to have sufficient natural buffers established around them to preserve hydrology and invasive species, especially phragmites, need to be controlled. No slender blue flag was observed during the site visit. Based on review of the NYNHP Database Records map (dated October 30, 2015), slender blue flag and/or its habitat are potentially located in a small area that is between the Runway 12 end and the Runway 7 end. Based on the NYNHP map, the only project area located near this potential slender blue flag area is related to tree clearing/vegetation removal proposed at the Runway 7 end. This includes up to 0.89 acres of temporary disturbance associated with up to 0.41 acres of vegetation removal and re-grading turf(dirt berm/mound)within this area. Since there is potential habitat for this plant, construction activities associated with obstruction removal at the Runway 7 end will be avoided during the slender blue flag's growing season (mid-April to mid-October). NYSDEC Freshwater and Tidal Wetlands Permits will be required for the obstruction removal project. Since measures and/or restrictions as set forth by the NYSDEC Wetland permits will be adhered to during construction, no significant impact to the slender blue flag is anticipated. Northern Gama Grass:The northern gama grass has clumped stems from 1 to 2 meters tall; there are 11 existing populations but only two of them have hundreds of plants; occurs most commonly in high salt marsh, wet meadows, oak forests, old fields, roadsides, and dunes, swamps, and wet soil. Conservation strategies and management practices indicate that exotic invasive species are the main threats to this grass, especially phragmites invading salt marsh habitats. This species needs disturbance to reduce competition from woody plants or more aggressive herbaceous plants, but too much direct disturbance to the plants will reduce or eliminate the population. Its habitat could be disturbed in the non-growing season to open it up for seed germination and colonization, but direct disturbance should be prevented during the growing season. No northern gama grass was observed during the site visit. Based on review of the NYNHP Database Records map, northern gama grass and/or its habitat are potentially located in a relatively small area that Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-20 VFFOLKCOG= is between the Runway 12 end and the Runway 7 end. Based on the NYNHP map, the only project area located near this potential northern gama grass area is related to tree clearing/vegetation removal proposed at the Runway 7 end. This includes up to 0.89 acres of temporary disturbance related to up to 0.41 acres of vegetation removal and turf excavation/grading (dirt berm/mound) within this area. Since there is potential habitat for this plant, construction activities associated with obstruction removal at the Runway 7 end will be avoided during the northern gama grass's growing season (mid-April to mid- October). NYSDEC Freshwater and Tidal Wetlands Permits will be required for the obstruction removal project. Since measures and/or restrictions as set forth by the NYSDEC Wetland permits will be adhered to during construction, no significant impact to the northern gama grass is anticipated. It should be noted that the NYNHP map(dated October 30,2015)did not identify any potential threatened or endangered species and/or critical habitats within the project areas related to runway pavement rehabilitation, airport entrance road improvements, terminal building construction, or private hangar development. Therefore, construction activities within those project areas are not anticipated to impact state-listed threatened or endangered species or their habitat. Mitigation (T&E) Federal Threatened and Endangered Species: In order to avoid direct impacts to the NLEB, sandplain gerardia, piping plover, red knot, and roseate tern the following mitigation measure will be implemented: ■ Construction activities related to tree clearing and vegetation removal will be limited to the winter months (October 31St through March 315`) ■ Minimize the duration of the construction period to the extent possible; no construction activities related to runway paving rehabilitation will take place between April 1 and September 1; construction will be limited to the identified project impact areas. ■ Soil erosion and sediment controls will be developed during design and implemented prior-to and during project construction in order to protect potential bordering or nearby biotic resources. ■ Construction equipment access will be limited to project impact areas and previously disturbed areas (i.e., mowed lawns, paved/dirt/stone roads, parking areas) in order to avoid impacting bordering or nearby biotic resources. ■ Re-vegetation of temporarily disturbed work areas will occur using a native seed mix. Based on the incorporation of the mitigation measures identified above, there would be no significant impact to federally-listed ME species. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-21 o`OSUFFOI,yCo.. z: USFWS Concurrence Correspondence requesting concurrence with the "may affect, not likely to adversely affect" and "no effect"determinations for the proposed project was submitted to the USFWS in May 2017 (see Appendix F). Following their review, the USFWS response (see Appendix F, correspondence dated June 20, 2017 from Mr. David A. Stilwell, USFWS) stated that"the Service concurs with the FAA's determination that the proposed project would not be likely to adversely affect the piping plover, red knot, roseate tern, and Northern long-eared bat due to implementation of the proposed conservation measures noted above." Their response further stated, "as previously noted, we have no records of sandplain gerardia on Fishers Island. None of the known New York populations of sandplain gerardia occur at this location. The Service concludes that this project would have no effect on the species and no further consultation is required for sandplain gerardia. In regard to seabeach amaranth, we acknowledge the FAA's determination of no effect. No further consultation is required for this species." State-Listed Threatened and Endangered Species: To avoid direct impacts to state-listed threatened and endangered species the following mitigation measure will be implemented: ■ Construction activities related to tree clearing and vegetation removal will be limited to the winter months (October 31St through March 31St) ■ Minimize the duration of the construction period to the extent practicable; no construction activities related to runway paving rehabilitation will take place between April 1 and September 1; construction will be limited to the identified project impact areas. ■ NYSDEC Freshwater and Tidal Wetlands permit restrictions—the permits will address any necessary measures that should be taken to avoid potential impacts to these species. Measures and/or restrictions as set forth by the NYSDEC Wetland permits in regards to these species will be adhered to during obstruction removal. ■ Soil erosion and sediment controls will be developed during design and implemented prior-to and during project construction in order to protect potential bordering or nearby biotic resources. ■ Construction equipment access will be limited to project impact areas and previously disturbed areas (i.e., mowed lawns, paved/dirt/stone roads, parking areas) in order to avoid impacting bordering or nearby biotic resources. ■ Re-vegetation of temporarily disturbed work areas will occur using a native seed mix. Based on the incorporation of the mitigation measures identified above, there would be no significant impact to state-listed T&E species. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-22 o�Og6F FO(KeoG:... .? s2 Migratory Birds The proposed project will not result in an increase in aircraft utilizing the airport and therefore would not result in an increase in the potential for in-air migratory bird impacts or increases in visual and auditory disturbances to migratory birds as a result of increased air traffic. In addition, tree clearing/vegetation removal within proposed project areas will be limited to the winter months (October 31"through March 31St)when birds would be expected to have already migrated south to winter in warmer climates. In order to avoid impacting potential nesting birds and their habitat during the summer months, construction equipment access will be limited to proposed project areas and previously disturbed areas (i.e., mowed lawns, paved/gravel roads). Given this information, the proposed project would not involve a "take" of a species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Mitigation (Migratory Birds) For species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the following best management practices (BMPs) should be implemented: ■ To the extent practicable, development activities should be undertaken outside of the breeding season of listed species. ■ Construction equipment access will be limited to project impact areas and previously disturbed areas (i.e., mowed lawns, paved/dirt/stone roads, parking areas). With the implementation of the recommended BMPs no significant impacts to migratory birds are expected. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-23 O�—%s3f FOth-0 Ecological Communities and Wildlife The ecological communities (vegetative cover types) present within proposed project areas provide habitat for a host of plants and animals. The existing vegetative cover types and habitat will be altered or lost due to the following construction activities: ■ Vegetation clearing involves changing wooded and shrub dominated areas to grass dominated or impervious areas and generally maintains existing grades. • Filling/grading involves the removal of all native vegetation and establishing new grades according to design criteria. Grades are established for re-establishing turf to meet safety area standards, to promote proper drainage and for preparation of pavement surfaces and new building construction. Figure 3-2 shows the vegetative cover types within proposed project areas that may be altered as a result of vegetation clearing,excavation and/or grading. The proposed project areas generally include a mixture of the following ecological community types: successional shrubland, mowed lawn, brushy cleared land, successional northern hardwoods and terrestrial cultural communities (i.e. pavement, gravel, buildings). A summary of vegetative covertype impacts is presented in Table 4-7. Table 4-7:Vegetative Covertype Impacts Covertype Existing Covertype Altered/Lost Rema i ning after (acres) (acres) Construction Mowed Lawn 1.60 0.0 4.35 Successional shrubland 0.65 -0.65 0.0 Successional northern hardwoods 2.83 -2.83 0.0 Brushy cleared land 0.26 -0.26 0.0 Beach 0.0 0.0 0.16 Terrestrial Cultural (pavement,gravel) 9.41 0.0 9.98 Buildings 0.0 0.0 0.26 Total 14.75 -3.74 14.75 Source:C&S Analysis 2016 A discussion of the impacts is provided below;the impacts are broken down into three categories: impacts associated with obstruction removal, impacts associated with construction of the new terminal building and impacts related to construction of the private hangar and its associated access drive and taxilane. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-24 �e�Far Obstruction Removal: Vegetation removal in wetland buffer areas—clearing in wetland buffer areas would involve clearing 0.91 acres of woody vegetation and brush and grubbing stumps. This would involve converting successional shrubland and brushy cleared land to mowed lawn (0.75 acres) and beach (0.16 acres). The trees, branches and brush will be removed from the project site and recycled to the extent practicable. Following removal, this area will be regraded and restored with a native seed mix. NYSDEC Freshwater and Tidal Wetlands Permits will be required for vegetation removal within wetland buffer areas. The permits will address any necessary measures that should be taken to avoid potential impacts to ecological communities and wetland buffer areas. Measures and/or restrictions as set forth by the NYSDEC wetland permits will be adhered to during vegetation removal and site restoration. No excavation or discharge of fill material as regulated by the USACE will take place. Refer to Section 4.6.1 Wetland Resources for a detailed discussion of wetland impacts and proposed mitigation measures. Grading turf in wetland buffer area—re-grading turf(dirt berm/mound) in wetland buffer areas will occur after vegetation removal is complete and will involve removing approximately 200 cubic yards of excavated (soil) material. Following excavation, this area will be re-graded and restored with a native seed mix. NYSDEC Freshwater and Tidal Wetlands Permits will be required for excavation/grading within wetland buffer areas. The permits will address any necessary measures that should be taken to avoid potential impacts to ecological communities and tidal wetland buffer areas. Measures and/or restrictions as set forth by the NYSDEC Wetland permits will be adhered to during excavation and grading activities. No excavation or discharge of fill material as regulated by the USACE will take place. Refer to Section 4.6.1 Wetland Resources for a detailed discussion of wetland impacts and proposed mitigation measures. Since vegetation removal and excavation/grading in buffer areas will be completed in accordance with NYSDEC wetland permits and none of the ecological communities (successional shrubland, mowed lawn, brushy cleared land) in the buffer areas are considered significant natural communities, no significant impacts to ecological communities are anticipated. Terminal Building Construction: Upland Clearing-Clearing in upland areas related to construction of the terminal building would include clearing 0.026 acres of woody vegetation and grubbing stumps. This would involve converting successional northern hardwoods to mowed lawn (0.025 acres)and developed land(0.007 acres). Stumps will be ground and trees, branches, and brush will be removed from the project site and recycled to the extent practicable. Following construction of the terminal building, project areas will be regraded and restored with a native seed mix. None of the ecological communities (i.e. successional northern Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-25 o X" 7a hardwoods, mowed lawn) within the proposed terminal building project area are considered significant natural communities,therefore, conversion of these areas would not be considered a significant impact. Private Hangar Development: Upland Clearing- Clearing in upland areas related to construction of the hangar and its associated access drive and taxilane would include clearing 2.8 acres of woody vegetation and removal of approximately 15,000 cubic yards of excavated material. This would involve converting successional northern hardwoods to mowed lawn(2.88 acres)and developed land(0.83 acres). Stumps will be ground and trees, branches and brush will be removed from the project site and recycled to the extent practicable. Following construction activities, project areas will be regraded and restored with a native seed mix. None of the ecological communities (i.e. successional northern hardwoods, mowed lawn, gravel path) within the proposed private hangar development area are considered significant natural communities,therefore, conversion of these areas would not be considered a significant impact. Wildlife Habitats: In addition to altering vegetative cover types, the proposed project will also cause a permanent loss of 2.83 acres of forested habitat and 0.91 acres of shrubland/brushy cleared land for use by wildlife. In the short-term vegetation clearing would disrupt wildlife populations that use the area. However, there are approximately 4.9 acres of additional adjacent forested areas and approximately 1.7 acres of adjacent successional shrubland/brushy cleared land areas that wildlife can migrate to,thus a slight shift in habitat location would be anticipated rather than direct effects to species using these areas. Mitigation (Ecological Communities & Wildlife) The following mitigation measures will be incorporated to minimize effects on ecological communities: ■ Time of year restriction—limiting tree cutting/vegetation removal to October 31 through March 31. ■ Felling trees away from adjacent wetland resources in order to avoid additional impacts. ■ Adjacent resources will be protected by the appropriate placement of soil erosion and sediment controls. ■ Marking adjacent wetlands with orange construction tape to avoid contractors extending into these adjacent areas. • Minimize the duration of the construction period to the extent possible. • Maintaining existing drainage patterns as much as possible and avoid altering hydrology of adjacent wetland resources. ■ Limiting construction equipment access to the proposed project areas and previously disturbed areas (mowed lawns, paved/dirt/gravel roads, etc.). Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-26 .o��gpFF01KCGG • NYSDEC Freshwater and Tidal Wetlands permit restrictions—the permits will address any necessary measures that should be taken to avoid potential impacts to ecological communities within wetland buffer areas. Measures and/or restrictions as set forth by the NYSDEC Wetland permits in regards to ecological communities will be adhered to during obstruction removal. • Re-vegetation of temporarily disturbed work areas using a native seed-mix. Based on the incorporation of the mitigation measures identified above, significant impacts to ecological communities or wildlife are not expected. 4.5 Coastal Resources Regulatory Setting Coastal Barrier Resources Act(CERA)—protects coastal areas that serve as barriers against wind and tidal forces caused by coastal storms and serve as a habitat for aquatic species.The CBRA protects coastal areas from development by limiting federal financial assistance for development-related activities in designated areas. CBRS boundaries are established and mapped by the USFWS. Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)—is administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and provides for the management of the nation's coastal resources, including the Great Lakes. The goal is to "preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance the resources of the nation's coastal zone." Significant Impact Threshold The FAA has not established a significance threshold for coastal resources in FAA Order 1050.117; however, the FAA has identified the factors to consider when evaluating the context and intensity of potential environmental impacts on coastal resources. These factors are not intended to be thresholds. If these factors exist, there is not necessarily a significant impact; rather the FAA must evaluate these factors in light of context and intensity to determine if there are significant impacts. Factors to consider that may be applicable to coastal resources include, but are not limited to, situations in which the proposed action or alternative(s)would have the potential to: ■ Be inconsistent with the relevant state coastal zone management plan(s); ■ Impact a coastal barrier resource system unit (and the degree to which the resource would be impacted); ■ Pose an impact to coral reef ecosystems (and the degree to which the ecosystem would be affected); Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-27 i,_ ■ Cause an unacceptable risk to human safety or property; or ■ Cause adverse impacts to the coastal environment that cannot be satisfactorily mitigated. Methodology Fishers Island is located within a coastal area that is covered by the New York State approved Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP). The Town of Southold LWRP (adopted November 30, 2004) is the primary document that guides waterfront revitalization within the Town (including Fishers Island). The Town of Southold waterfront revitalization policy statements are a local refinement of the Long Island Sound Coastal Management Program Policies that apply throughout the Long Island Sound region.These policy statements implement New York State's 44 coastal policies as far as they are applicable within the Town of Southold; there are 13 Town of Southold LWRP policies. According to the New York State Department of State (NYSDOS) Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP), an applicant seeking approval from a federal agency which is subject to the New York State Coastal Management Program (CMP) must complete a Federal Consistency Assessment Form (CAF) for any activity that will occur within and/or directly affect the State's coastal area. Therefore, a CAF was prepared for the proposed project and is included within Appendix J. Based on the results of the coastal assessment (refer to Section C of the CAF in Appendix J), the proposed project was evaluated for its consistency with the Town of Southold's LWRP and its 13 policies. Table 4-8 presents a summary of the consistency review for the proposed project. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-28 Table 4-8:Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program(LWRP)Consistency Review ProposedPolicy Policy Is DescriptionPolicy Project Consistent Community Foster a pattern of development that enhances community 1 Character& character, preserves open space, makes efficient use of Not applicable Development infrastructure, makes beneficial use of a coastal location, & minimizes adverse effects of development(refer to Section 3.4.8) Historic, 2 Archaeological, Preserve historic and archaeological resources(refer to Section Yes &Cultural 3.4.7) Resources 3 Visual Quality Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources(refer to Not applicable Section 3.4.12) Flooding and Minimize loss of life,structures, &natural resources from 4 Erosion Control flooding&erosion (refer to Section 4.6.2) Yes 5 Water Quality Protect and improve water quality(refer to Section 4.6) Yes Ecological 6 Resources Protect and restore the quality and function of the local Yes Protection ecosystem(refer to Section 4.4) 7 Air Quality Protect and improve air quality (refer to Section 4.2) Yes Solid and 8 Hazardous Minimize environmental degradation from solid waste, hazardous Yes Waste substance and wastes(refer to Section 3.4.6) 9 Public Access Provide for public access to,and recreational use of coastal Not applicable waters, public lands,and public resources(refer to Section 3.4.4) Water- Protect water-dependent uses& promote siting of new water 10 dependent Uses dependent uses in suitable locations Not applicable Marine Promote sustainable use of living marine resources(refer to 11 Yes Resources Section 4.4) 12 Agricultural Protect agricultural lands(refer to Section 3.4.5) Not applicable Lands Energy and Promote appropriate use and development of energy and mineral Yes 13 Mineral resources(refer to Section 3.4.9) Resources Source:C&S Analysis 2016 As noted in Table 4-8, several of the Town of Southold LWRP policies (i.e., Policy 1, 3, 9, 10 and 12) are not applicable to the proposed project since the project site (i.e.,the Airport) is dedicated to aviation use and all work is taking place within Airport property. The Town of Southold LWRP policies that were determined to be applicable to the proposed project are discussed below. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-29 ��yUFFOLRC�G Policy 1 -Foster a pattern of development in the Town of Southold that enhances community character, preserves open space, makes efficient use of infrastructure, makes beneficial use of a coastal location, and minimizes adverse effects of development. Not applicable - The proposed project is taking place within the boundary of Airport property which is dedicated to aviation use. Policy 2-Protect and preserve historic and archaeological resources of the Town of Southold. The New York State (NYS) Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) was contacted in regards to the potential of the proposed project to impact historic and/or archaeological resources. The NYS OPRHP indicated that based on their review (including review of the Phase IA Archeological Investigation), no historic properties would be affected by the proposed project(refer to Section 3.4.7for additional details). Given the information included above and within Section 3.4.7 of this report,the proposed project would be consistent with Policy#2. Policy 3-Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town of Southold. Not applicable - The proposed project is taking place entirely within airport property (refer to Section 3.4.12 for additional details). Policy 4-Minimize loss of life,structures, and natural resources from flooding and erosion. As detailed in Section 4.6.2 Floodplains the proposed project would not result in: ■ A considerable probability of loss of human life ■ Likely future damage that could be substantial in cost or extent, including interruption of service on or loss of a vital transportation facility ■ A notable adverse impact on natural and beneficial floodplain value Refer to Section 4.6.2 for additional details. In addition, soil erosion and sediment control plans will be developed during design of the proposed project and will be consistent with NYS Department of Transportation Standard Specification for Temporary Soil Erosion and Water Pollution Control, New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual, and the standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control. Adherence to design standards, inspection and quality control during construction; and periodic cleaning of soil erosion and sediment control features will minimize and mitigate the potential for erosion and sedimentation. Given the information included above and within Section 4.6.2 of this report,the proposed project would be consistent with Policy#4. Policy 5-Protect and improve water quality and supply in the Town of Southold. The proposed project does not involve work within the bed or banks of any surface waters (i.e. wetlands, ponds,oceans)and will not result in the placement of fill or any discharge into waters of the United States. However, in order to protect nearby surface water resources from soil erosion and sedimentation during Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-30 F04 ""W'" construction, soil erosion and sediment control plans will be developed during the design of the proposed project and will be consistent with the NYS Department of Transportation Standard Specification for Temporary Soil Erosion and Water Pollution Control, New York State Stormwoter Management Design Manual, and the standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control. Adherence to design standards, inspection and quality control during construction; and periodic cleaning of soil erosion and sediment control features will minimize and mitigate the potential for erosion and sedimentation. As detailed in Section 4.6.1 (wetlands), Section 4.6.2 (floodplains), Section 4.6.3 (surface waters) and Section 4.6.4 (groundwater), impacts to water quality would be minimized below significant impact thresholds with the incorporation of the mitigation measures outlined within each of the respective report sections identified above. Given the information included above, the proposed project would be consistent with Policy#5. Policy 6-Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold's ecosystem. Consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the NYSDEC Natural Heritage Program has occurred for the proposed project. Given the information included in Section 3.4.2 and Section 4.4 of this report and based on the incorporated mitigation measures included in Section 4.4,there would be no significant impact to federal and state listed T&E species. Given the information included above,the proposed project would be consistent with Policy#6. Policy 7-Protect and improve air quality in the Town of Southold. The proposed project does not involve construction of heavy industry, creation of new power generation plants and will not cause an increase in aircraft or automobile use. However,the proposed project would result in an increase in emissions from stationary sources associated with combustion of fuel oil for heating new facilities (i.e., terminal building and private hangar) as well as a temporary increase in emissions from use of various construction equipment and travel by contractors. An emissions inventory was prepared for the proposed project in order to assess its impact on air quality. Based on the results of the air quality analysis,the net emissions resulting from the proposed project were below the de minimis threshold levels for EPA designated criteria pollutants (refer to Section 4.2 Air Quality for additional details). Given the information detailed above, as well as the fact that the proposed project would not have an effect on enplanements or aircraft operations at the airport,the proposed project would not significantly impact air quality and would be consistent with Policy#7. Policy 8-Minimize environmental degradation in the Town of Southold from solid waste and hazardous substances and wastes. The proposed project does not involve handling, generating, transporting or disposal of hazardous waste or toxic substances and would not produce a large increase in solid waste collection, control, or disposal other than short-term waste associated with construction activities. Construction debris will be recycled by the contractor where practicable and the remainder will be disposed of by the contractor consistent with federal, state, and local regulations (refer to Section 3.4.6 for additional details). Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-31 tiz y *wv Given the information included above, the proposed project would be consistent with Policy#8. Policy 9-_Provide for public access to, and recreational use of, coastal waters, public lands, and public resources of the Town of Southold. Not applicable - The proposed project is taking place within Airport property and will not impact public access points to shoreline and waterfront recreation facilities that exist within the Town. Policy 10-Protect Southold's water-dependent uses and promote siting of new water-dependent uses in suitable locations. Not applicable-According to the LWRP Section III,water dependent use means a business or other activity which can only be conducted in,on,over,or adjacent to a water body because such activity requires direct access to that waterbody, and which involves, as an integral part of such activity, the use of water. The proposed project is located entirely within Airport property and does not involve water dependent uses and would not interfere with businesses or activities within the Town that are considered water dependent uses. Policy 11 -Promote sustainable use of living marine resources in Long Island Sound, the Peconic Estuary and Town Waters. The proposed project does not involve commercial or recreational fishing, harvesting or depleting marine and fishery resources and does not involve work within coastal waters. However, in order to protect nearby marine and water resources during construction, soil erosion and sediment control plans will be developed during the design of the proposed projects and will be consistent with the NYS Department of Transportation Standard Specification for Temporary Soil Erosion and Water Pollution Control, New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual, and the standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control. Adherence to design standards, inspection and quality control during construction; and periodic cleaning of soil erosion and sediment control features will minimize and mitigate the potential for erosion and sedimentation. Given the information included above,the proposed project would be consistent with Policy#11. Policy 12-Protect agricultural land in the Town of Southold. Not applicable - The proposed project is taking place within the boundary of airport property and does not involve agricultural land (refer to Section 3.4.5 for additional details). Policy 13-Promote appropriate use and development of energy and mineral resources. The proposed project includes construction of two new buildings (300 sq. ft. terminal building and an 11,250 sq. ft. hangar) which will result in a slight increase in energy (i.e., electricity) demand. However, operation of the new buildings will not create a significant demand for electricity. Design of the new buildings will be consistent with current building standards which generally promote efficient use of natural resources and energy. A building permit application will be prepared and submitted to the Town of Southold during design of the proposed project, prior to construction. Construction of the buildings will be completed consistent with the Town of Southold building codes (refer to Section 3.4.9 for additional details). Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-32 ���g�fFOLYCO._ ti z The proposed project does not include siting/construction of major energy generating facilities or fuel storage facilities and does not involve mineral extraction or mining activities or industrial processes. Given the information included above,the proposed project would be consistent with Policy#13. Impacts Coastal resource impacts were evaluated based on whether the proposed project would be inconsistent with the relevant Town of Southold LWRP policies, impact a coastal barrier resource system unit, pose an impact to coral reef ecosystems, cause an unacceptable risk to human safety or property or whether the proposed project would cause a significant impact to natural resources occurring within coastal waters or their adjacent shorelands (i.e., biological resources, wetlands,floodplains, surface waters, groundwater). Alternative 1: No-Action Since no development would occur with the No-Action Alternative there would be no impacts to coastal resources. Alternative 2: Preferred Alternative Coastal Barrier Resource System As noted in Chapter 3 (Section 3.4.3) there are no USFWS mapped coastal barriers in or adjacent to the proposed project areas. Therefore, no impact to coastal barrier resources would occur as a result of the proposed project. Coral Reef Ecosystems The proposed project does not involve work within coastal waters. Therefore, no coral reef ecosystem impacts are expected. Human Safety or Property As detailed in Section 4.6.2 Floodploins, the proposed project would not cause an unacceptable risk to human safety or property. Town of Southold LWRP Consistency Based on the consistency analysis included above,the proposed project is consistent with applicable Town of Southold LWRP policies. Correspondence requesting concurrence that the proposed project meets the New York State Department of State's (DOS) general consistency concurrence criteria was submitted to the New York State DOS (see Appendix J) in October 2016. Following their review, the New York State DOS response(see Appendix J,correspondence dated January 12,2017 from Mr.Jeffrey Zappieri, NYSDOS Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-33 � G 4 s2. w z' Consistency Review Unit) stated that "the Department of State has determined that this proposal meets the Department's general consistency concurrence criteria. Therefore, the Department of State has no objection to the use of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)funds for this financial assistance activity. This concurrence pertains to the financial assistance activity for this project only. If federal permits or other form of federal agency authorization is required for this activity, the Department of State will conduct a separate review for those permitted activities. In such a case, please forward a copy of the federal application for authorization, a completed Federal Consistency Assessment Form, and all supporting information to the Department at the same time it is submitted to the federal agency from which the necessary authorization is requested." Natural Resources Since project areas are located within a coastal area, the proposed project has the potential to impact natural resources occurring within coastal waters or their adjacent shorelands (i.e., biological resources (Section 4.4), wetlands (Section 4.6.1), floodplains (Section 4.6.2), surface water (Section 4.6.3) and groundwater (Section 4.6.4). In general, impacts to coastal resources (refer to appropriate natural resource sections identified above) would be minimized below significant impact thresholds with the incorporation of the mitigation measures outlined within each of the respective resource report sections identified above. Given that the proposed project would not cause an unacceptable risk to human safety or property,would not impact coastal barriers or coral reef ecosystems,is consistent with the Town of Southold LWRP policies and since impacts to natural resources (i.e., biological and water resources) would be mitigated below significant impact thresholds; no significant impacts to coastal resources are expected. 4.6 Water Resources According to Chapter 14 of the Desk Reference"water resources are surface waters and groundwater that are vital to society; they are important in providing drinking water and in supporting recreation, transportation and commerce,industry,agriculture,and aquatic ecosystems. Surface water,groundwater, floodplains, and wetlands do not function as separate and isolated components of the watershed, but rather as a single, integrated natural system. Disruption of any one part of this system can have consequences to the functioning of the entire system." Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-34 1o�o�iffot,��oG=.. o � 4.6.1 Wetlands Regulatory Setting Clean Water Act—The Clean Water Act(CWA)establishes the basic structure for regulating the discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States, which include wetlands. The two primary sections of the CWA relating to wetland impacts and permitting are Section 404 and Section 401. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act—The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act requires federal agencies to consult with the USFWS, NMFS (in some instances), and appropriate state fish and wildlife agencies regarding the conservation of wildlife resources when proposed Federal projects may result in control or modification of the water of any stream or other water body(including wetlands). Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands—Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, 42 Federal Register 26961, (May 25, 1977) directs all federal agencies to avoid adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands, to the extent practicable. The stated purpose of this Executive Order is to "minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands." DOT Order 5660.1A,Preservation of the Nation's Wetlands—This DOT Order implements the guidelines set forth in Executive Order 11990. As stated in this DOT Order, transportation facilities should be planned, constructed, and operated in order to assure the protection and enhancement of wetlands. Article 25, ECL Implementing Regulations-6NYCRR Part 663, 664, 665—The New York State Legislature passed The Freshwater Wetlands Act in 1975 with the intent to preserve, protect and conserve freshwater wetlands and their benefits, consistent with the general welfare and beneficial economic, social and agricultural, development of the state. ARTICLE 25,ECL Implementing Regulations—6NYCRR Part 661—the policy of New York State,as set forth in the Tidal Wetlands Act, is to preserve and protect these wetlands.To implement this policy,the NYSDEC administers the Tidal Wetlands Regulatory Program which is designed to prevent the despoliation (i.e., ravishing) and destruction of tidal wetlands by establishing and enforcing regulations that: 1. Preserve, protect, and enhance the present and potential values of tidal wetlands, 2. Protect the public health and welfare, and 3. Give due consideration to the reasonable economic and social development of the state. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-35 F F 0j woo Significant Impact Threshold FAA Order 1050.1F provides the FAA's significance threshold for wetlands.A significant impact exists if the action would: • Adversely affect the function of a wetland to protect the quality or quantity of municipal water supplies, including sole source, potable water aquifers. • Substantially alter the hydrology needed to sustain the functions and values of the affected wetland or any wetlands to which it is connected. • Substantially reduce the affected wetland's ability to retain floodwaters or storm-associated runoff, thereby threatening public health, safety or welfare (this includes cultural, recreational, and scientific resources important to the public, or property). • Adversely affect the maintenance of natural systems that support wildlife and fish habitat or economically-important timber, food, or fiber resources in the affected or surrounding wetlands. • Promote development of secondary activities or services that would affect the resources mentioned above. • Be inconsistent with applicable State wetland strategies. Methodology Wetlands regulate the quality and quantity of surface and groundwater supplies, reduce flood hazards by serving as retention basins for surface runoff and maintain water supplies after floodwaters subside. Wetlands also provide wildlife habitat, and support diverse plant communities.These benefits are altered and often lost when they are filled, drained, polluted, or otherwise modified. Wetlands include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Tidal wetlands consist of all salt marshes, non-vegetated as well as vegetated flats, and shorelines subject to tides. At the federal level the USACE regulates wetlands, regardless of size, that meet the criteria set forth in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Northcentral and Northeast Region Version 2.0. The USACE regulates these wetlands under Section 404 of the CWA. Under Section 404 of the CWA, a permit is needed from the USACE for discharge of dredged or fill material into wetlands under the Corps' jurisdiction. USACE wetlands are those areas that surface or groundwater inundate or saturate at a frequency and duration sufficient to support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Federal non-jurisdictional wetlands do not involve navigable waters because they are not connected to or adjacent to navigable waters of the United States. Dredge and fill activities Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital linproNement Program Projects 4-36 'yOFOj A, 0 y in these (non-jurisdictional) wetlands do not require U.S. Army Corps of Engineers approvals, but these wetlands are natural resources FAA must assess under NEPA. At the state level the NYSDEC regulates wetlands that meet the criteria set forth in the 1995 NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands Delineation Manual and are at minimum 12.4 acres in size or are of unusual local significance.The NYSDEC regulates these wetlands, and a 100-foot buffer area that extends from wetland delineation boundaries, under Article 24 of the ECL. Permits are required for a number of activities that affect wetlands and associated buffers including clear cutting vegetation and placement of fill. The NYSDEC also administers a permit program regulating activities in tidal wetlands and their adjacent areas under the Tidal Wetlands Act(Article 25 of the ECL). Adjacent areas (i.e.,tidal wetland buffer areas) extend up to 300 feet inland from the wetland boundary(up to 150 feet inland within New York City).The NYSDEC requires a permit for almost any activity which will alter wetlands or the adjacent areas. As discussed in Chapter 3 (Section 3.4.13), a wetlands delineation was conducted by C&S in May 2016. A copy of C&S's Wetlands and Waterways Delineation Report is included within Appendix H. A total of three wetlands (Wetland A, Wetland B, Wetland C), comprising a total of 11.64 acres were delineated within the 135-acre study area (see Figure 3-6). Wetlands A and C are regulated by both the USACE and the NYSDEC. Wetland B is a USACE jurisdictional wetland. The NYSDEC and the USACE differ in their approach to regulating wetlands, utilize different resources for determining impacts, and have different standards for permitting and mitigation.As such,this section will be broken down into two sections to address federal and state requirements. Federally Regulated Wetlands Delineated wetland areas A (Wetland A), B (Wetland B) and C (Wetland C) are regulated by the USACE and are considered federal jurisdictional wetlands as they meet the criteria set forth in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, Northcentral and Northeast Region, Version 2.0. The USACE does not regulate buffer areas surrounding wetlands. Based on C&S's wetland delineation, the total acreage of Wetland A within airport property is approximately 0.44 acres; the total acreage of Wetland B within airport property is 0.50 acres; and the total acreage of Wetland C within airport property is 10.70 acres. The USACE's preferred guidelines for classification of wetlands is the USFWS's Classification of Wetlands and Deep Water Habitats in the United States (Cowardin, et al., 1979). According to Cowardin, et al., Wetland A is an Estuarine Intertidal Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-37 -$AfFot'tCo._. Z G - Emergent Persistent Regularly Flooded (E2EM1N) system which is dominated by erect, rooted, herbaceous vegetation that grow in aquatic conditions; Wetland B is a Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom Permanently Flooded Diked/Impounded (PUBHh) system that is dominated by trees, shrubs, and emergent vegetation; and Wetland C is a Palustrine Emergent Persistent Seasonally Flooded/Saturated Partially Drained/Ditch (PEM1Ed) system which also contains a Palustrine Aquatic Bed Permanently Flooded Diked/Impounded (PABHh) system that is primarily dominated by trees, shrubs, and emergent vegetation. Table 4-9 presents' information (i.e., community type,jurisdiction,wetland size) obtained during C&S's wetland delineation with regard to the federally regulated wetlands identified within the study area. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-38 Table 4-9: Federally Regulated Wetlands Total Project Project Area Project Area Project Area within within within Proposed Project Area Wetland A Wetland B Wetland C Limits (acres) (acres) (acres) Community Type E2EMIN PUBHh/PEM1 PEM1Ed Jurisdiction Federal/State Federal Federal/State Wetland Size within 135-Acre Study Area 0.44 0.50 10.70 Runway 12-30 Pavement Rehabilitation 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 Runway 7-25 Pavement Rehabilitation 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 Obstruction Removal-RW 12 end 0.34 0.0 0.0 0.0 Obstruction Removal-RW 30 end 0.16 0.0 0.0 0.0 Obstruction Removal-RW 7 end 0.89 0.0 0.0 0.0 Private Hangar Development 3.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Terminal Building Construction 0.39 0.0 0.0 0.0 Entrance Road Improvements 0.27 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Proposed Project 14.75 0.0 0.0 0.0 Source: C&S Analysis 2016 As shown in Table 4-9, the proposed project does not involve construction activities within federal jurisdictional Wetlands A, B, or C (see Figure 4-1) and will not cause the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States (i.e., Wetlands A, B, and C). Therefore, an USACE Section 404 Wetland Permit would not be required for the proposed project. State Regulated Freshwater Wetlands Wetland's A and C are also regulated by the NYSDEC as it coincides with NYSDEC Freshwater Wetlands NL-13 and NL-10, respectively. Based on the NYSDEC Environmental Mapper, Wetland NL-13 is a Class 2 wetland with a total area of approximately 1.1 acres, of which approximately 0.44 acres is located on airport property.Wetland NL-10 is a Class 1 wetland with a total area of approximately 10.7 acres(acreage based on wetland delineation), all of which is located on airport property. As shown on Figure 4-2, none of the proposed project areas include construction activities within state-regulated freshwater wetlands (i.e., Wetland NL-13, Wetland NL-10). However, as previously mentioned, state regulated areas include a 100-foot buffer surrounding the wetland. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-39 �\ ..,1 - Legend Airport Property Line Cm ~� 1 t • f _ �' O►- ".f, �, .moi" r. Li Proposed Project Areas lk C&S Delineated Wetlands ,� ter• � �. �+!' : 3 t •M •` ii NWI -•- - • J , too v7, lie 0a N 0 250 Soo 1 inch = 500 feet -� When printed at 11"x17" Date: 9/15/2016 cis COMPANIES ,A& / • • � • pF SOpI�`o jco {t� IIS M Legend Airport Property Line Proposed Project Areas C&S Delineated Wetlands C&S Delineated Wetlands 100-ft Buffer Tidal Wetlands-SM (Coastal a .. -. �' � � -, _•.- -�� Shoals, Bars and Mudflats) r Tidal Wetlands 300-ft Buffer t NYSDEC Wetlands NYSDEC Wetlands 100-ft Buffer x E N A } /! N �/► -r j � N U ID 0.005 acres within A. 0.16 acres within .-'� o / C&S Delineated 100-ft Buffer Tidal 300-ft Buffer - 0 250 500 -% Feet �- ""�---- 1 inch = 500 feet d ,�'• When printed at 11"x17' 0 - . Date 10/17/2016 pm 2.65 acres within , 0.92 acres within Tidal 300-ft Buffer CBS�.�' Tidal 300-ft Buffer COMPANIES ,. w B 0.89 acres within i'� Elizabeth Field Tidal 300- Buffer ft Airport - - - Town of Southold 0 Fishers Island, New York 0 LL �' 0 State Wetlands Map U Figure 4-2 -- 7 Fao' Table 4-10 presents information (i.e., jurisdiction, wetland size) obtained during C&S's wetland delineation with regard to the state regulated wetlands and wetland buffer areas that were identified within the study area. Table 4-10:State Regulated Freshwater Wetlands/Buffer Areas ProposedTotal Vegetation' Project Project Area Project Project Area Project Removal Area within Area within Limits Project Area Wetland 00100' Buffer (acres) (acres) NL-13 Area NL-10 Area (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Wetland Delineation Designation A A-Buffer C C-Buffer Jurisdiction Federal/ State Federal State State /State Wetland Size within 135-Acre Study Area 0.44 1.02 10.7 8.84 Runway 12-30 Pavement 6.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rehabilitation Runway 7-25 Pavement 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rehabilitation Obstruction Removal- 0.34 0.34 0.0 0.005 0.0 0.0 RW 12 end Obstruction Removal- 0.16 0.16 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 RW 30 end Obstruction Removal- 0.89 0.41 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 RW 7 end Private Hangar 3.9 2.80 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Development Terminal Building 0.39 0.026 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Construction Entrance Road 0.27 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Improvements Total Proposed Project 14.75 3.74 - 0.0 1 0.005 0.0 0.0 Source:C&S Analysis 2016 'Vegetation removal includes trees,bushes,shrubs;does not include temporary disturbance to mowed lawn/gravel. State Regulated Tidal Wetlands Tidal wetlands and their adjacent areas are also regulated by the NYSDEC. Based on C&S's wetland delineation (see Figure 4-2) the proposed project does not include construction activities within state- regulated tidal wetlands. However, as previously mentioned, state regulated areas include tidal wetland adjacent(i.e., buffer) areas that extend 300 feet inland. As presented in Table 4-11,the proposed project will involve construction activities within the 300-foot buffer area (see Figure 4-2). Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-42 I'�jUFFOIN`' C 77!"� Table 4-11:State Regulated Tidal Wetlands/Buffer Areas Total Vegetation' Project Area Project Area within Proposed Project Project Area Removal within within 300' Buffer Limits Project area Tidal Wetland Area (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Runway 12-30 Pavement Rehabilitation 6.3 0.0 0.0 2.65 Runway 7-25 Pavement Rehabilitation 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.92 Obstruction Removal-RW 12 end 0.34 0.34 0.0 0.0 Obstruction Removal-RW 30 end 0.16 0.16 0.0 0.16 Obstruction Removal-RW 7 end 0.89 0.41 0.0 0.89 Private Hangar Development 3.9 2.80 0.0 0.0 Terminal Building Construction 0.39 0.026 0.0 0.0 Entrance Road Improvements 0.27 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Proposed Project 14.75 3.74 0.0 4.62 Source:C&S Analysis 2016 Vegetation removal includes trees,bushes,shrubs,does not include temporary disturbance to mowed lawn/gravel. Impacts Alternative 1: No-Action Since no development would occur with the No-Action Alternative there would be no impacts to wetlands. Alternative 2: Preferred Alternative Federally Regulated Wetlands As presented in Table 4-9, the proposed project does not involve construction activities within federal jurisdictional Wetlands A, B, or C (see Figure 4-1) and will not cause the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States (i.e., Wetlands A, B, and Q. State Regulated (Freshwater and Tidal) Wetlands As presented in Table 4-10, the proposed project does not involve construction activities within state- regulated freshwater or tidal wetlands (see Figure 4-2). State Regulated Freshwater Wetland Buffer Area As presented in Table 4-10, impacts involve the removal of up to 0.005 acres of vegetation (i.e., phragmites)within the 100-foot buffer area to Wetland NL-13 (see Figure 4-2).The Wetland NL-13 buffer area consists primarily of brushy cleared land (i.e., woody debris, patchy vegetation, scattered shrubs). Vegetation removal within the buffer area would not involve permanent impacts to wetlands or a loss of Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-43 .\SUF FO(,yco. o�o�Gs 3. wetland resources, therefore, it is anticipated that compensatory mitigation would not be required. However, since the NYSDEC does regulate vegetation removal in state protected wetland buffer areas, the proposed project will require an Article 24 Freshwater Wetlands Permit in order to remove obstructions (Le., vegetation)within the wetland buffer area. State Regulated Tidal Wetland Buffer Area As presented in Table 4-11, impacts within the 300-foot tidal wetland buffer area involve the removal of up to 0.16 acres of vegetation at the Runway 30 end, removal of up to 0.41 acres of vegetation and turf at the Runway 7 end and pavement rehabilitation within portions of Runway 12-30 (2.65 acres) and Runway 7-25 (0.92 acres). Project areas within the 300-foot buffer primarily consist of successional shrubland and paved surfaces. Although the proposed project will not involve permanent impacts to tidal wetlands or a loss of wetland resources, construction activities (i.e., clearing or clearcutting, excavation, and grading) within the 300-foot tidal wetland buffer require a NYSDEC Article 25 Tidal Wetlands Permit. Therefore,the proposed obstruction removal project will require a NYSDEC Tidal Wetlands permit. It should be noted that the Runway 12-30 Rehabilitation project and the Runway 7-25 Rehabilitation project would be considered exempt activities. Exempt activities are defined by the NYSDEC as "continuation of lawfully existing uses which do not alter lands or wetlands, and which do not change existing structures in or adjacent to the tidal wetland DO NOT require tidal wetland permits." The project site's wetlands provide many beneficial functions including wildlife habitat,sediment removal, toxicant removal, and flood storage.These functions are lost when wetlands are drained or polluted.The proposed project will not involve discharge of dredged or fill material into wetlands nor result in a decrease of wetlands.As discussed above,construction activities are limited to only wetland buffer areas. Nearby wetland resources will be protected by soil erosion and sediment controls.Given this information, the proposed project would not reduce the amount of overall freshwater or tidal wetland habitats. Mitigation Federally Regulated Wetlands The proposed project does not involve work within Federally-regulated wetlands. However, in order to avoid impacting nearby wetland areas during construction activities the following measures will be implemented: ■ Minimize the duration of the construction period to the extent possible. ■ Clearing activities in the vicinity of the wetland will be conducted such that individual trees/vegetation are felled in a direction away from the wetland. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-44 �ho`SOFFOIKCo-... • Adjacent resources will be protected by the appropriate placement of soil erosion and sediment controls. ■ Marking adjacent wetlands with orange construction tape to avoid contractors extending into these adjacent areas ■ Re-vegetation of temporarily disturbed areas with native seed mix State Regulated Freshwater and Tidal Wetlands Although the proposed project does not involve work within state-regulated wetlands, construction activities will occur within freshwater and tidal wetland buffer areas. The NYSDEC does not generally require mitigation for vegetation/turf removal or pavement rehabilitation in wetland buffer areas. However, in order to avoid impacting wetland areas during buffer area construction activities the following measures will be implemented: ■ Clearing activities in the vicinity of the wetland will be conducted such that individual trees/vegetation are felled in a direction away from the wetland. ■ Minimize the duration of the construction period to the extent possible. ■ Adjacent resources will be protected by the appropriate placement of soil erosion and sediment controls. ■ Marking adjacent wetlands with orange construction tape to avoid contractors extending into these adjacent areas ■ Re-vegetation of temporarily disturbed buffer areas with native seed mix In general, impacts to wetlands would be minimized below significant impact thresholds with the incorporation of the mitigation measures outlined above. As a result, no significant impacts to wetland resources is expected. 4.6.2 Floodplains Regulatory Setting Executive Order (EO) 11988 was originally issued on May 24, 1977, and established a national policy requiring Federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, the long and short term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains. On January 30,2015,the President signed EO 13690, establishing a Federal Flood Risk Management Standard ("FFRMS") and a Process for Further Soliciting and Considering Stakeholder Input, which amended E.O. 11988, Floodplain Management. However, in Guidelines33 issued on October 8, 2015,federal agencies were directed not to apply the new 33 Guidelines for Implementing Executive Order 11988,Floodplain Management,and Executive Order 13690, Establishing a Federal Flood Risk Management Standard and a Process for Further Soliciting and Considering Stakeholder Input October 8, 2015. Available at: https//www.floods.org/ace-files/documentlibrary/FloodRiskMngmtStandard/EO13690 IG Octl5.pdf Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-45 ho`oSUfPolp-coGZ N�2 • requirements until after the agencies adopt new or revised regulations governing the proper implementation of EO 13690 and the FFRMS. The Guidelines state that agencies will continue to comply with the requirements of the 1977 version of E.O. 11988 until they update their regulations and procedures to incorporate the amendments from E.O. 13690. These regulations and procedures will describe an agency's schedule for implementing new requirements as well as how it will apply the new requirements. The new requirements of EO 11988 will not be applied retroactively. The DOT has not issued implementing orders to date. DOT Order 5650.2 Floodplain Management and Protection implements the guidelines set forth in EO 11988 and states that DOT agencies should ensure that proper consideration is given to avoid and mitigate adverse floodplain impacts in agency actions, planning programs, and budget requests. Significant Impact Threshold Floodplain impacts would be significant pursuant to NEPA if there would be notable adverse impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values. Per the Desk Reference, a significant encroachment under DOT Order 5650.2 would occur when the encroachment results in one or more of the following impacts: ■ A high likelihood of loss of human life ■ Substantial encroachment-associated costs or damage ■ A notable adverse impact on the floodplain's natural and beneficial floodplain values Methodology As indicated in Chapter 3 (Section 3.4.13), based on review of the FIRMS for the Town of Southold,Suffolk County, N.Y., several of the proposed project areas are located entirely within or in a portion-of the 100- year floodplain (see Figure 3-5), however, the proposed project does not involve development within a designated floodway. Table 4-12 presents a list of the proposed ACIP projects and identifies the portion (project limits) of the project located in the base floodplain. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-46 F,wwca 0000 ® - Table 4-12: Project Areas Located in 100-Year Floodplain Total Project Vegetation'Removal Project Area within Proposed Project Area Limits within Project Area 100-Year Floodplain Runway 12-30 Pavement Rehabilitation 6.3 0.0 6.3 Runway 7-25 Pavement Rehabilitation 2.5 0.0 2.5 Obstruction Removal 1.39 0.91 0.67 Private Hangar Development 3.9 2.80 0.36 Terminal Building Construction 0.39 0.026 0.0 Entrance Road Improvements 0.27 0.0 0.0 Total Proposed Project 14.75 3.74 9.83 Source:C&S Analysis 2016 'Vegetation removal includes trees,bushes,shrubs;does not include temporary disturbance to mowed lawn/gravel. As mentioned above, Executive Order 11988 directs federal agencies to take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health, and welfare and restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values provided by floodplains. FEMA has prepared guidance on floodplain management and has methodology for determining whether or not a project could be considered a it action." A"critical action", as defined in the Federal Register Vol.43, No. 2934, means an activity for which even a slight chance of flooding would be too great. Actions may include the storage of highly volatile, toxic, or water reactive materials. The guidance document, "Further Advice on Executive Order 11988 Floodplain Management" provides the following questions designed to assist in determination of whether or not a project should be considered a "critical action." ■ If flooded, would the proposed action create an added dimension to the disaster, as could be the case for liquefied natural gas terminals and facilities producing and storing highly-volatile, toxic, or water-reactive materials? The proposed project does not involve storage of and/or facilities that use liquefied natural gas; does not include facilities producing and storing highly-volatile,toxic,or water-reactive materials; and does not require bulk storage of petroleum or chemical products. Within the base floodplain, the proposed project rehabilitates existing runway pavement (384,345 sq. ft.), removes a small amount of vegetation and turf (0.67 acres) and increases the total impervious area (paved surfaces associated with taxilane)within the floodplain by 0.36 acres (see Figure 3-5). If flooded, the proposed project would not create an added dimension to the disaster. 34 Federal Emergency Management Agency.Further Advice on Executive Order 11988 Floodplain Management Available at: http://www.gsa.gov/graphics/pbs/FEDERAL_EMERGENCY_MANAGEMENT_AGENCY_R2F-a8-k_OZ5RDZ-i34K-pR.pdf Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-47 hO`p�UFFO(,�COGi o �+ z .'SOI� TO ■ Given the flood warning lead-time available, would the occupants of buildings such as hospitals, schools, and nursing homes be insufficiently mobile to avoid loss of life and injury? The proposed project does not include construction of buildings within the 100-year floodplain. ■ Would essential and irreplaceable records,utilities and/or emergency services be lost or become inoperative if flooded? The proposed project does not include or involve storage of essential and irreplaceable records, utilities and/or emergency services that could be lost or become inoperative if flooded. As previously mentioned, the proposed project (within the 100-year floodplain) involves rehabilitating existing runway pavement, removing a small amount of vegetation and installation of a small section of paved taxilane. Given the information included above, the proposed project does not meet the criteria set forth in the Federal Register Vol.43, No. 29, dated 2/10/78 or the FEMA guidance "Further Advice on Executive Order 11988 Floodplain Management" for a "critical action." Impacts Floodplain Impacts were evaluated based on the whether the proposed project would be considered a critical action and whether encroachment would be considered significant. Alternative 1: No-Action Future conditions without the proposed project (No-Action) would be the same as under exiting conditions. Since the majority of the Airport is within the 100-year floodplain, airport operations take into account the potential for flooding and appropriate safety measures are implemented as necessary. It is anticipated that proper measures to safeguard airport operations would continue to be implemented without the proposed project. Alternative 2: Preferred Alternative Critical Action As documented above,the proposed project does not meet the criteria of a "critical action". Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-48 o��gpFFO(KCo._ ti G= Encroachment As presented in Table 4-12, the proposed project will encroach within the limits of the base floodplain. Activities taking place within the 100-year floodplain include: Runway 12-30 pavement rehabilitation (273,675 sq. ft.); Runway 7-25 pavement rehabilitation (110,670 sq. ft.); obstruction removal at the Runway 12 end (0.34 acres), 30 end (0.16 acres) and 7 end (0.17acres); and construction of a portion of the taxilane (0.36 acres)to connect the new hangar to the existing tie-down apron. Avoidance of the base floodplain is not possible with regard to the projects identified above since (1) runway rehabilitation is associated with existing runways which are located within the 100-year floodplain; (2) vegetation removal is associated with obstructions identified at existing runway ends, which are already located within the base floodplain;and (3)taxilane construction is necessary to connect the private hangar (which is located outside of the base floodplain) to the existing tie-down apron which is located within the base floodplain. The only alternatives that would avoid encroachment with regard to obstruction removal would involve displacing the runway thresholds to clear obstructions.As described in Chapter 2 (Alternatives), displacing the runway thresholds is not feasible. The only other alternative would be to relocate the Airport which is not a reasonable or feasible alternative. Therefore, encroachment within the floodplain cannot be avoided. As previously mentioned, according to DOT Order 5650.2, encroachment is considered significant if construction would result in one or more of the following: ■ A considerable probability of loss of human life. The proposed project would not result in a considerable probability of loss of human life. ■ Likely future damage associated with the encroachment that could be substantial in cost or extent, including interruption of service on or loss of a vital transportation facility. A majority of the Airport is already located within the 100-year floodplain and any future flood related damage associated with the proposed project would not be substantial in cost or extent. ■ A notable adverse impact on natural and beneficial floodplain value. According to 1050.1F, factors to consider when assessing impacts on a floodplain's natural and beneficial values include: Agricultural Activities—Floodplains are often valued due to their level topography and their fertile substrate. Would the proposed project erode or contaminate floodplain substrate, thereby reducing the floodplain's agricultural activity? Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-49 00"ioGs y • Ori: -_-- No substantial changes to the existing topography within the base floodplain would occur as a result of the proposed project. Design and construction of the proposed project will be consistent with federal, state and local floodplain and water quality regulations and appropriate erosion control measures will be installed prior to construction. It should be noted that no agricultural activity takes place on airport property. Aquacultural Activities—Due to their need for constant water supplies and specific water quality requirements, aquacultural (i.e., fish or shellfish farming) activities often occur in or near floodplains. Would the proposed project disrupt any of these activities? The proposed project is taking place within airport property. No fish or shellfish farming activities occur within proposed project areas and no aquacultural activities will be disrupted as a result of the proposed project. Aquatic or terrestrial organisms—numerous aquatic and terrestrial species occupy floodplains due to their food, cover, and water. Would the proposed project disrupt the floodplains ability to provide needed food, cover, or water requirements to sustain the organisms? Since the proposed project consists of rehabilitating existing runway pavement, adding a small amount of pavement (0.36 acres) within a mowed lawn area and only a minimal amount of vegetation removal(0.67 acres), no effect to the floodplains ability to provide needed food,cover, and water requirements to sustain organisms is anticipated. Flood Control—Due to their expanse and obstructions, floodplains often slow flows or retain water, thereby lessening the probability of upstream or downstream flooding. Would the proposed project cause flow alterations that result in unacceptable upstream or downstream flooding? The proposed project will remove up to approximately 0.67 acres of vegetation within the base floodplain. Given the relatively small amount of vegetation removal proposed within floodplains and that similar vegetation exists nearby that will remain unchanged,the proposed project would not be expected to cause a change in flow that results in upstream and downstream flooding. Groundwater recharge—Waters flowing through floodplains often flow more slowly allowing water to seep through surface cracks and recharge aquifers. Would the proposed project adversely affect aquifer recharge capabilities? As detailed in Section 4.6.4 (groundwater resources) of this chapter, the proposed project would not adversely affect aquifer recharge capabilities. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-50 1o,$Vf FO(,yCOG o©� H z o � � Water Quality—the natural flow of water over rough surfaces, through vegetation, and the natural biological and chemical processes found in the floodplains reduce pollutant loads helping to maintain water quality. Would the proposed project disrupt the floodplains capacity to maintain desired water quality standards? The proposed project would not significantly change existing surfaces within the base floodplain and would not disrupt the floodplains capacity to maintain desired water quality standards. Based on the information included above the proposed project does not meet the criteria of a "critical action" and would not result in a significant encroachment to the base floodplain. Mitigation Potential adverse impacts to floodplains resulting from construction can be avoided or minimized through careful design, proper construction practices and maintenance of stormwater facilities. In order to minimize potential impacts to floodplains,the following mitigation measures will be incorporated into the project: ■ Appropriate erosion control measures will be installed prior to construction to protect areas beyond the construction limits. ■ Minimize fill placed in floodplains ■ Comply with flood-related design criteria • Control waste and spoils disposal to prevent groundwater and surface water contamination ■ A Town of Southold Floodplain Development Permit will be obtained prior to construction for those projects that include work within the 100-year floodplain. Measures and/or restrictions as set forth by the Town will be adhered to during construction. Given that the proposed project does not meet the criteria of a "critical action", would not result in a significant encroachment to the base floodplain and since impacts to floodplains would be minimized below significant impact thresholds with the incorporation of the mitigation measures outlined above, no significant impact to floodplains are expected. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-51 4.6.3 Surface Waters Regulatory Setting Clean Water Act (CWA)—establishes the basic structure for regulating the discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States. The sections of the CWA relating to waters of the United States are Section 303(d), Section 404, Section 401, and Section 402. Section 303(d) of the CWA—Under Section 303(d), states, territories and authorized tribes are required to develop lists of impaired waters.These are waters that are too polluted or otherwise degraded to meet the water quality standards set by states, territories, or authorized tribe. Section 401 of the CWA—Under Section 401, an applicant for a federal permit or approval to conduct any activity that may result in a discharge to waters of the United States must provide the federal agency with a Section 401 certification. Section 401 provides states with two distinct powers; the power indirectly to deny federal permits or licenses by withholding certifications, and the power to impose conditions upon federal permits by placing limitations on certification. Section 402 of the CWA(Stormwater Regulations)—Under Section 402,the USEPA was granted authority to establish regulations to restore and maintain the quality of surface waters. The EPA implemented the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program to regulate point sources of discharge pollutants into surface waters. The EPA authorized New York State to implement the NPDES program. The State's Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) established the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) program and provides the NYSDEC with additional legal authority to regulate wastewater to groundwater. Section 404 of the CWA—The USACE regulates Waters of the United States under Section 404 of the CWA. The placement of fill material into Waters of the U.S. (including wetlands) generally requires an individual or nationwide permit from the USACE under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. In addition to the Section 404 Permit, the USACE also administers the Section 10 permit under the Rivers and Harbors Act for any construction in, over, or under a navigable water. Significant Impact Threshold FAA Order 1050.1F provides the FAA's significance threshold for surface waters.A significant impact exists if the action would: ■ Exceed water quality standards established by Federal, state, local, and tribal regulatory agencies; or Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-52 1�o`�gpFFO(NCOGs ■ Contaminate public drinking water supply such that public health may be adversely affected. Additional factors that may be applicable to surface waters include, but are not limited to, situations in which the proposed action or alternative(s) would have the potential to: ■ Adversely affect natural and beneficial water resource values to a degree that substantially diminishes or destroys such values. ■ Adversely affect surface waters such that the beneficial uses and values of such waters are appreciably diminished or can no longer be maintained and such impairment cannot be avoided or satisfactorily mitigated. ■ Present difficulties based on water quality impacts when obtaining a permit or authorization. Methodology As described in Chapter 3 (Section 3.4.13) there are three surface waters (2 freshwater ponds and 1 estuarine/marine deepwater) located within Airport property(i.e., the study area) as well as the Atlantic Ocean which is located immediately adjacent to the Airport. All of the identified surface waters are considered Waters of the United States. The CWA defines Waters of the United States35 as all waters which are currently used, were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide (i.e., traditionally navigable waters), all interstate waters (including wetlands); and territorial seas. This includes all tributaries and adjacent waters to the waters previously identified. The proposed project is not taking place within the limits (i.e., bed or bank) of any surface waters and does not involve discharging dredged or fill material into them. Therefore, a USACE Section 404 permit is not required. NYSDEC Water Quality Certifications In accordance with Section 401 of the CWA, applicants for a Federal license or permit for activities (including but not limited to the construction or operation of facilities that may result in any discharge into waters of the United States) are required to apply for and obtain a Water Quality Certification from DEC indicating that the proposed activity will not violate water quality standards. Water Quality Certification is required for: placing fill or undertaking activities resulting in a discharge to waters of the United States where, for example, a permit is required from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the CWA. Since the proposed project does not involve placing fill or undertaking activities that would result in a discharge to waters of the United States, a water quality certification from NYSDEC would not be required. 35 Clean Water Rule: Definition of"Waters of the United States".40 CFR 230.3.Available at: httl_%„NA�,a_eu% itesTPrAuction file 201 _- 06/documents/clean water rile 40 cfr 230 3 pdf Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-53 Impacts Impacts to surface water were evaluated based on the proposed projects potential to adversely affect the water quality and natural hydrology of the area. Alternative 1: No-Action Since no development would occur with the No-Action Alternative,there would be no impacts to surface water resources. Alternative 2: Preferred Alternative The proposed project will be designed to meet all relevant state water quality standards. No federal or state wetlands or waterways will be impacted by the proposed project with the exception of state wetland buffer areas. However, no significant impact to buffer areas are anticipated as a result of the proposed project (see Section 4.6.1 for further details). The proposed project does not involve creation of a new water body;excavation,dredging or construction within a wetland or in the bed or banks of any other water body;construction of an in-take for withdrawal of water from a surface water; construction of an outfall for discharge of wastewater to a surface water; application of pesticides or herbicides in or around water bodies,or the increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water. The proposed project will result in additional impervious areas on Airport property. Impacts related to the addition of impervious surfaces include decreases in the amount of rainwater that can naturally infiltrate into the soil and increases in the volume and rate of stormwater runoff because there is less vegetated area to soak up the rainwater. During storm events,the higher and more rapid peak discharge of runoff and stream flow can overload the capacity of wetlands and streams located on site as well as water bodies downstream of the site causing downstream flooding and streambank erosion. The total impervious area (paved surfaces) associated with the proposed project would increase from approximately 25 acres to approximately 26 acres as a result of construction activities related to the new terminal building and private hangar development. Approximately 14%of the entire 191-acre site would consist of impervious surfaces with the remaining 86%of the site remaining undeveloped. Although there would be a slight increase in impervious cover (0.84 acres) associated with the proposed project, since a majority of the site will remain undeveloped (86%), the amount of rainwater naturally infiltrating back into the soil would not be anticipated to change significantly as a result of the proposed project. Additional stormwater resulting from the proposed project will be collected in drainage swales and or Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-54 �o�O ,} FfQ[ COG= =�_ pipes which will tie into the existing drainage system. Prior to construction (i.e. during design), stormwater modeling will be performed to calculate the additional stormwater runoff from the proposed p roj e ct. Impacts related to construction activities associated with land clearing and grading activities include disturbing the ground surface, removing the vegetative cover and temporarily increasing the potential for soil erosion,thereby causing a potential increase in suspended solids in runoff to local receiving (surface) waters. Additional impacts could occur from contaminated stormwater runoff due to potential leaks or spills of fuel or hydraulic fluid used in construction equipment;outdoor storage of construction materials; or spills of paints, solvents or other potentially hazardous materials that are commonly used in construction. The contractor will be expected to follow best management practices in order to avoid accidental spills of fuel oils,chemicals, concrete leachate and sediments into receiving waters and aquatic habitats. These practices would include proper storage, use, and cleanup of all construction-related chemicals. In addition, control of soil erosion will occur through the use of appropriate soil erosion and sediment control techniques. A soil erosion and sediment control plan will be developed during design consistent with FAA Advisory Circular 150/5370-10G, Standards for Specifying Construction of Airports, and the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit for stormwater discharges associated with construction activities. Adherence to design standards, inspection and quality control during construction and periodic cleaning of soil erosion and sediment control features will minimize and mitigate the potential for water resource impacts. Given the elevation of the airport, dewatering during construction is also anticipated. Dewatering will be considered during project design and will be completed consistent with federal, state, and local regulations and will be the responsibility of the contractor performing the work. Some common methods that may be used for dewatering are gravity drains and sumps. Mitigation Potential adverse impacts to surface waters resulting from construction can be avoided or minimized through careful design, proper construction practices and maintenance of stormwater facilities. In order to minimize potential impacts to surface waters, the following mitigation measures will be incorporated into the project: ■ Grading, excavation, and filling activities will be limited to what is necessary for construction of the proposed project. ■ Soil erosion and sediment control plans will be developed during the design of the proposed project and will be consistent with the NYS Department of Transportation Standard Specification for Temporary Soil Erosion and Water Pollution Control, New York State Stormwater Management Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-55 o��gUFfOIfiCOG z Design Manual, and the standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control.Adherence to design standards, inspection and quality control during construction; and periodic cleaning of soil erosion and sediment control features will minimize and mitigate the potential for erosion and sedimentation. ■ Best management practices will be followed to avoid accidental spills of fuel oils, chemicals, concrete leachate, and sediments into aquatic habitats. These practices include proper storage, use, and cleanup of all construction-related chemicals. ■ Stabilize construction entrances and exits to prevent tracking onto roadways. ■ Routes would be carefully selected to avoid wetland areas. ■ Disturbed areas will be restored (i.e., revegetated) to prevent soil erosion following completion of the proposed projects. ■ A Town of Southold Building Permit application will be prepared during design of the proposed project and will include a Stormwater Management Control Plan (SMCP) which will address stormwater runoff and erosion control issues associated with construction. Specifically,the SMCP will include (if applicable to the project)stormwater design calculations; location, size, and detail drawings for all proposed drainage structures,downspouts, leaders,and underground piping;test holes indicating soil type and depth to groundwater; limits of clearing; location and detail drawings of the silt fence and/or straw bale erosion and sediment controls; location of construction entrance; location of topsoil stockpile area. In general, impacts to surface waters would be minimized below significant impact thresholds with the incorporation of the mitigation measures outlined above. Given this information and since the proposed project will be designed to meet all relevant state water quality standards, no significant impact to water quality is anticipated. 4.6.4 Groundwater Regulatory Setting Safe Drinking Water Act—Prohibits Federal agencies from funding actions that would contaminate an EPA designated sole source aquifer or its recharging areas. Section 401 of the CWA—Under Section 401, an applicant for a federal permit or approval to conduct any activity that may result in a discharge to waters of the United States must provide the federal agency with a Section 401 certification. Section 401 provides states with two distinct powers; the power indirectly to deny federal permits or licenses by withholding certifications, and the power to impose conditions upon federal permits by placing limitations on certification. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-56 O�-S0FF04COG. Significant Impact Threshold FAA Order 1050.1F provides FAA's significance threshold for groundwater. A significant impact exists if the action would: ■ Exceed groundwater quality standards established by Federal, state, local, and tribal regulatory agencies; or ■ Contaminate an aquifer used for public water supply such that public health may be adversely affected. Methodology Many communities obtain their drinking water from aquifers. Unfortunately, the groundwater can become contaminated by human activity. For example, chemicals can enter the soil and rock, polluting the aquifer and eventually the groundwater well. Aquifers are susceptible to organic and inorganic contaminants such as septic waste,landfill leachate,chemical pollutants, industrial waste lagoons,deicing fluids, and/or agricultural chemicals. As previously mentioned, the Airport is located over the Nassau- Suffolk Sole Source Aquifer and in an effort to protect drinking water and the aquifer system, Fishers Island was designated as a Critical Environmental Area (CEA) by Suffolk County. During the preliminary scoping process for the proposed project, the USEPA, the Town of Southold Planning Department, and the Suffolk County Division of Environmental Quality (DEQ) were sent letters notifying them of the proposed project and requesting information or comments regarding environmental resources in or near the study area (see Appendix F). No response was received from the Town of Southold Planning Department of the Suffolk County DEQ. The USEPA response indicated that since federal funds will be used for the proposed projects, FAA must get a sole source aquifer review from USEPA, under Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Impacts Impacts to groundwater were evaluated based on the proposed projects potential to adversely affect water quality or contaminate the Nassau-Suffolk Sole Source Aquifer. Alternative 1: No-Action Since no development would occur with the No-Action Alternative there would be no impacts to groundwater. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-57 _..`OSUFfOfRCO Alternative 2: Preferred Alternative As previously stated, the proposed project will be designed to meet all relevant state water quality standards. The proposed project does not involve bulk storage of petroleum or chemical products, commercial application of pesticides, or withdrawal of groundwater for operational purposes and does not involve activities that would generate, utilize, or store aquifer-susceptible contaminants such as landfill leachate, industrial waste lagoons,or deicing fluids. However,the proposed project would result in a small amount of septic discharge from building restrooms (i.e. terminal building and hangar building) to the existing community septic system that currently serves the Airport. The proposed project will include installation of new wastewater lines that will connect to the existing community septic system. The new wastewater lines will be designed and installed consistent with local and state regulations. Therefore, no contamination of groundwater and/or the aquifer as a result of the proposed project is anticipated. Refer to Section 3.4.9 for additional details with regard to the community septic system. New impervious surfaces can cause a reduction in groundwater infiltration and recharge area. As detailed in Section 4.6.3, the total impervious area (paved surfaces) associated with the proposed project would increase from approximately 25 acres to approximately 26 acres as a result of construction activities related to the new terminal building and private hangar development. Approximately 14% of the entire 191-acre site would be impervious surfaces with the remaining 86% of the site remaining undeveloped. Impacts related to the construction of additional impervious surfaces include decreases in the amount of rainwater that can naturally infiltrate into the soil, thereby potentially affecting groundwater recharge. Since the increase in impervious areas is not significant (0.84 acres) and since a majority of the site will remain undeveloped (86%),the amount of rainwater infiltrating into the soil would not be anticipated to change. Given the information included above,there are no significant long-term impacts to groundwater quality anticipated as a direct result of the proposed project. Short-term effects to water quality from construction activities related to the proposed project could occur. The impacts should be limited and controlled as the contractor will be required to remain consistent with FAA Advisory Circular 150/5370- 10G, Airport Construction Controls to Prevent Air and Water Pollution, as well as state and local environmental regulations. Proper implementation of soil erosion and sediment control devices will minimize impacts to water quality during construction. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-58 .o��gUFFO(N�OG. may y. Mitigation Potential adverse impacts to groundwater resulting from construction can be avoided or minimized through careful design and proper construction practices. In order to minimize potential impacts to groundwater, the following mitigation measures will be incorporated into the project: ■ Soil erosion and sediment control plans will be developed during the design of the proposed project and will be consistent with the NYS Department of Transportation Standard Specification for Temporary Soil Erosion and Water Pollution Control, New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual, and the standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control.Adherence to design standards, inspection and quality control during construction; and periodic cleaning of soil erosion and sediment control features will minimize and mitigate the potential for erosion and sedimentation. ■ Areas of new impervious surfaces will be limited to only the areas necessary for project-related construction. ■ Best management practices will be followed to protect surface water runoff that may infiltrate into the ground by avoiding accidental spills of fuel oils, chemicals, concrete leachate, and sediments into aquatic habitats. These practices include proper storage, use, and cleanup of all construction-related chemicals. ■ Disturbed areas will be restored to prevent soil erosion following completion of the proposed project. ■ A building permit application will be submitted to the Town of Southold during design of the proposed project and will include site plan and design approval by the Town. Since the proposed project will be designed to meet all relevant state water quality standards, it would not have a significant impact on groundwater quality. In general, impacts to groundwater and the sole source aquifer would be minimized below significant impact thresholds with the incorporation of the mitigation measures outlined above. As a result, there would be no significant impacts to groundwater resources or the Fishers Island Critical Environmental Area. USEPA Sole Source Aquifer Project Review USEPA sole source aquifer project review is required for the proposed project since the Airport is located within a designated sole source aquifer area. Correspondence requesting concurrence that the proposed project does not have a significant potential to contaminate the sole source aquifer was prepared for submittal by FAA to the USEPA. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-59 O�gUFFO�KCOG w z: woo y'yol� y'aa 4.6.5 Wild and Scenic Rivers No impacts to Wild and Scenic Rivers are expected (see Chapter 3,Section 3.4.13 Water Resources). 4.7 Cumulative Impacts The Council on Environmental Quality(CEQ) Regulations define a cumulative impact as"the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions" (see 40 CFR § 1508.7). Cumulative impacts can be viewed as the total combined impacts on the environment of the proposed action or alternative(s) and other known or reasonably foreseeable actions. 4.7.1 Summary of Projects In order to determine cumulative impacts to the environment, projects occurring within the past three years and planned for the next five years are generally evaluated. Current (Present) Projects There are no projects currently under construction at the Airport; however, the FIFD plans to complete the lighting and signage repair and replacement project at the Airport in December 2016. This project consists of lighting and signage repairs along Runways 12-30 and 7-25. Most of the existing lights and signs were detached from their bases as a result of Hurricane Sandy. Repairs will generally consist of replacing lights and signs in-kind from the ground-up,and installing new lighting cable in existing conduits. There are isolated areas that require installation of new conduit as a result of the existing conduit being undermined and exposed from the effects of the storm. Since the existing in-ground light bases and underground conduits will remain and be re-used, only minimal ground disturbance (less than 500 SY or 0.1 acres) associated with the conduit replacement is expected. A CATEX for this project was previously approved by FAA. The evaluation completed during preparation of the CATEX (including consultation with the USFWS, NYSDOS, and NYSDEC) indicated that the lighting and signage replacement project would not cause a significant impact to environmental resources, including: biological resources, coastal resources, water resources, or air quality. Past Projects The last project completed at the Airport was phase II of the runway crack repair/sealing project in 2011 (i.e., five years ago). Since no projects have taken place at the Airport within the past three years, evaluation of cumulative impacts did not include past projects. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-60 ^ao��SpF FUf d CSG... Reasonably Foreseeable Future The proposed project detailed within this EA included those projects identified in the Airport Capital Improvement Program (ACIP).The ACIP describes the goals and objectives of the Sponsor for the next five years (i.e., future projects). Therefore, the proposed project and the "reasonably foreseeable future projects" are one in the same. Table 4-13 presents a list of reasonably foreseeable future projects (i.e., the proposed project). Table 4-13: Reasonably Foreseeable Future Projects Fiscal Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Source:US Engineers,Inc. As shown above, design and/or construction of each of the proposed projects will occur within the next five years(2017-2021)with the exception of construction for the Runway 7-25 rehabilitation project which will not occur until 2022. Although, technically outside the five-year future planning period, this project was still assessed within this cumulative impact section. 4.7.2 Cumulative Impacts Comparison As discussed in this EA, the airport projects proposed for implementation over the next five years were considered and evaluated. No other projects were identified that would take place within the reasonably foreseeable future(i.e.,five years). Given that the lighting and signage replacement project scheduled to begin in December 2016 would not cause a significant impact to environmental resources and since no additional impacts other than those already addressed in the EA are anticipated to occur,there will be no further cumulative impacts. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-61 -- � hof* baa; 4.8 List of Anticipated Permits, Licenses, Approvals or Reviews No permitting or approval activities took place as part of this EA process. As mentioned previously, the proposed project consists of five-year ACIP projects. Since the projects are not connected or dependent on one another, permit applications and/or approvals that are necessary will be obtained separately during design of each of the respective projects. Table 4-14, presents a summary of anticipated permits and/or approvals that may be required for each of the proposed ACIP projects. Table 4-14:Anticipated Permits and/or Approvals ProjectTotal Design Project Year Area Limits Anticipated Permit/Approval Joint Application for Permit(NYSDEC Freshwater and Tidal Wetlands) Obstruction Removal 2017 1.39 NYSDEC SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activities Town of Southold Floodplain Development Permit NYSDEC SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Runway 12-30 2017 6.3 Discharges from Construction Activities Rehabilitation Design Town of Southold Floodplain Development Permit Terminal Bldg. 2017 0.39 Town of Southold Building Permit NYSDEC SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activities Private Hangar 2017 3.9 Development Town of Southold Building Permit Town of Southold Floodplain Development Permit' Entrance Rd. Improvements 2018 0.27 No anticipated permits required NYSDEC SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Runway 7-25 2021 2.5 Discharges from Construction Activities Rehabilitation Town of Southold Floodplain Development Permit Source:C&S Engineers,Inc. 1 Permit required for construction of the taxilane associated with the hangar development project. The hangar building will be located outside of the 100-year floodplain. As shown above,there are no required federal permits anticipated. As noted in Table 4-14,a NYSDEC Joint Application for Permit will be required for the Obstruction Removal Project. As previously mentioned, the permit application will be prepared during design of this project Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-62 hk,o��gUFFO(KCOG= z (i.e., 2017). In addition, those projects involving soil disturbance of one (1) or more acres (refer to Table 4-14) will require coverage under the NYSDEC SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activities. The permit application for those projects will include preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)and completion of a Notice of Intent(NOI)form to be submitted to the NYSDEC during project design. Typical timeframes for NYSDEC permits of this nature generally include a 15-day review for completeness and a decision within 90 days of its determination that the application is complete. Given that impacts to biological resources, coastal resources and water resources would be mitigated, difficulty in obtaining permits is not anticipated. 4.9 Public Participation A public participation program will be included as part of the 5-year Airport Capital Improvement Program (ACIP) EA process (see Appendix K).To date the following has occurred: TBD Public notice published in the legal section of the Suffolk Times newspaper regarding the availability of this document for public review. See Appendix K for a copy of the published pubic notice. TBD 30-day public review and comment period began TBD 30-day public review and comment period ended In addition to the public review discussed above, a copy of the draft EA was also submitted to the USEPA, NYSDEC, NYSDOT, USACE, NYSDOS, Town of Southold, and Suffolk County DEQ for their review and comment. Environmental Assessment for Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Projects 4-63