Draft Environmental Assessment Jefferson Parish Jefferson ......about 55 miles in a north -south direction from the southern shores of Lake Pontchartrain to the ... Jefferson, which

Draft Environmental Assessment Jefferson Parish Jefferson Park Subdivision/Manson Ditch Drainage Improvements, Jefferson, LA FEMA-DR-1603-LA Jefferson Parish, Louisiana Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Project Number 1603-0425 September 2017

U.S. Department of Homeland Security FEMA Region VI Louisiana Recovery Office 1500 Main Street Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70802

This page was intentionally left blank.

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Project Authority ...............................................................................................................1 1.2 Background and Site Description ......................................................................................1

2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED ....................................................................................................... 6

3.0 ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................................ 6

3.1 No Action Alternative .......................................................................................................6 3.2 Preferred Action Alternative: Jefferson Park Subdivision/Manson Ditch Drainage Improvements ..............................................................................................................................6 3.3 Considered Alternative: Increase the Size of Drain Lines Running North-South between Morris Place and the ICRR Ditch ..............................................................................................13 3.4 Considered Alternative: Drainage Improvements to the Crossing of Cleary Avenue at Canal No. 5 ................................................................................................................................13 3.5 Considered Alternative: Installation of a Pump Station on the ICRR Ditch to Discharge Water to the Mississippi River ...................................................................................................13

4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS .................................. 13

4.1 Impact Summary .............................................................................................................13 4.2 Hydrology and Floodplains (Executive Order 11988) ....................................................28 Considered Alternative: Increase the Size of Drain Lines Running North-South between Morris Place and the ICRR Ditch ..........................................................................................................33 4.3 Surface Water and Water Quality ...................................................................................33 Considered Alternative: Increase the Size of Drain Lines Running North-South between Morris Place and the ICRR Ditch ..........................................................................................................35

5.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS .............................................................................................. 35

6.0 CONDITIONS AND MITIGATION MEASURES ........................................................ 38

7.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ............................................................................................... 42

8.0 AGENCY COORDINATION ........................................................................................... 42

9.0 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 43

10.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ..................................................................................................... 44

11.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 44

ii

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Location of Jefferson Park Subdivision within Jefferson Parish. ......................................... 2 Figure 2. Aerial of existing drainage features in the Manson Ditch Drainage Basin. ......................... 5 Figure 3. Project location within Jefferson, LA. ................................................................................. 7 Figure 4. Aerial plans of the proposed Jefferson Park Subdivision/Manson Ditch Drainage Improvements (Layers 1-3) .................................................................................................................. 9 Figure 5. Aerial plans of the proposed Jefferson Park Subdivision/Manson Ditch Drainage Improvements (Layers 4-6) ................................................................................................................ 10 Figure 6. Aerial plans of the proposed Jefferson Park Subdivision/Manson Ditch Drainage Improvements (Layers 7-9) ................................................................................................................ 11 Figure 7. Aerial plan for the proposed Shrewsbury Pump Station, Jefferson, LA.. .......................... 12 Figure 8. Manson Ditch Drainage Basin south of rail embankment, Jefferson, LA. ......................... 29 Figure 9. Jefferson Parish hazard mitigation Manson Ditch project benefit area map. ..................... 32 Figure 10. Map depicting FEMA-funded projecs within the study area. .......................................... 37

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Matrix Preferred Action:

Jefferson Park Subdivision/Manson Ditch Drainage Improvement ............................................ 15 Table 2. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Matrix Considered Alternative:

Increase the Size of Drain Lines Running North-South between Morris Place and the ICRR Ditch ............................................................................................................................................. 23

Table 3. Water surface elevations at various points along Manson Ditch during ideal pump simulations ................................................................................................................................... 31

Table 4. FEMA-funded project sites in study area by disaster and project type ............................... 36 Table 5. FEMA-funded project sites in study area by disaster and estimated project completion date

...................................................................................................................................................... 36 Table 6. Known Present, Past, and Reasonably Foreseeable Infrastructure and Recovery

Improvement Projects. ................................................................................................................. 38

APPENDICES Appendix A Site Photographs Appendix B Site Plans Appendix C Hydrologic and Hydraulics Study Appendix D Agency Correspondence Appendix E Other Information (Public Notice, 8-Step Process, & FONSI)

iii

LIST OF ACRONYMS ABFE Advisory Base Flood Elevation ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation APE Area of Potential Effects BFE Base Flood Elevation BMP Best Management Practices CAA Clean Air Act CBRA Coastal Barrier Resources Act CBRS Coastal Barrier Resources System CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations cfs Cubic Feet per Second CMP Corrugated Metal Pipe CNRR Canadian National Railroad CUP Coastal Use Permit CWA Clean Water Act CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act dB Decibels DEA Draft Environmental Assessment DHS Department of Homeland Security DNL Day-night average sound level EA Environmental Assessment EHP Environmental and Historic Preservation EIS Environmental Impact Statement E.O. Executive Order EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act ESA Endangered Species Act FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act FWCA Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act GOHSEP Governor's Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness HDPE High Density Polyethylene HMGP Hazard Grant Mitigation Program HP Historical Preservation H&H Hydrologic and Hydraulics Study ICRR Illinois Central Railroad LA Louisiana LDEQ Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality LDOA Louisiana Division of Archaeology LDOTD Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development LDNR Louisiana Department of Natural Resources LDWF Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries LNHP Louisiana Natural Heritage Program LPDES Louisiana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System MCN Muscogee Creek nation NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

iv

NFIP National Flood Insurance Program NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NO Number NOPBRR New Orleans Public Belt Railroad NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRC National Response Center NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Services NRHP National Register of Historic Places NWI National Wetlands Inventory NWP Nationwide Permit OPA Otherwise Protected Area OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Act PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl PMT Pole-Mounted Transformer PL Public Law RCP Reinforced Concrete Pipe RCPA Reinforced Concrete Pipe Arch RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RHA Rivers and Harbors Act ROW Right-of-Way SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act SHPO State Historic Preservation Office/Officer SPOC Single-Point-of-Contact SOV Solicitation of View SOW Scope of Work SSA Sole Source Aquifer Protection Program SWMM Stormwater Management Models THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Office/Officer TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act U.S. United States USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service WSE Water Surface Elevation

Jefferson Parish: Jefferson Park Subdivision/Manson Ditch Drainage Improvements- Draft Environmental Assessment (September 2017) 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Authority

Hurricane Katrina, a Category 3 hurricane with a storm surge above normal high tide levels, moved across the Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida Gulf Coasts on August 24, 2005. Maximum sustained winds at landfall were estimated at 140 miles per hour. On August 29, 2005, President George W. Bush declared a major disaster for the State of Louisiana and signed a disaster declaration authorizing the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to provide federal assistance in designated areas of Louisiana (Hurricane Katrina, DR-1603-LA). FEMA is administering this disaster assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act), Public Law (PL) 93-288, as amended. Section 404 of the Stafford Act authorizes FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) to provide funds to states and local governments to implement long-term hazard mitigation measures after a major disaster declaration. Through the Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness (GOHSEP), the applicant, Jefferson Parish, applied for funding under FEMA’s HMGP to reduce localized flooding during and after storm events within the Jefferson Park Subdivision area.

This Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) is being prepared in accordance with the FEMA Instruction 108-1-1 and the DHS Instruction 023-01-001-01, pursuant to Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as implemented by the regulations promulgated by the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500-1508). The purpose of this Environmental Assessment (EA) is to evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed action on the physical and human environment. FEMA is also using the EA to document compliance with other applicable federal laws, regulations, and executive orders (E.O.), including the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), E.O. 11988 (Floodplain Management), E.O. 11990 (Wetland Protection), and E.O. 12898 (Environmental Justice). The results of this EA will be used to make a decision whether to initiate preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or to prepare a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).

1.2 Background and Site Description

Jefferson Parish is located in southeastern Louisiana covering approximately 665 square miles, of which 305 square miles is land and 336 square miles is water (Figure 1). The Parish extends about 55 miles in a north-south direction from the southern shores of Lake Pontchartrain to the Gulf of Mexico and covers both the East and West Banks of the Mississippi River. It has a population of approximately 436,275 people (2015). It is bordered to the east by Orleans, Plaquemines and St. Bernard Parishes, and to the west by St. Charles and Lafourche Parishes. Jefferson, which includes the neighborhoods of Old Jefferson, Jefferson Park, Shrewsbury, and Jefferson Heights, is a census-designated place and is part of the New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner Metropolitan area. It is located on the East Bank of the Mississippi River with approximately 11,193 people, according to the 2010 U.S. census. Jefferson is located approximately seven (7) miles from New Orleans and 77 miles from Baton Rouge, Louisiana.


Major roads in Jefferson include South Clearview Parkway, Earhart Expressway (LA 3139), Causeway Boulevard (LA 3046), Jefferson Highway (US 90), Airline Drive (US 61), Metairie Road (LA 611-9), Shrewsbury Road (LA 611-3), Labarre Road (LA 611-4), and River Road (LA 611-1). The Earhart Expressway, running east-west immediately south of Airline Drive, is the only other freeway entering New Orleans from the west, but it ends as an expressway soon after crossing into Orleans Parish. In addition to roads, numerous railroad tracks traverse the area. The Canadian National Railroad (CNRR), Illinois Central Railroad (ICRR) and the New Orleans Public Belt Railroad (NOPBRR) run east-west, south of Earhart Boulevard. A Norfolk-Southern spur line begins west of the intersection of the Earhart Expressway and Causeway Boulevard and travels northeasterly. A Kansas City Southern Railroad spur begins just east of Severn Avenue and travels to the Jefferson/Orleans parish line south of Airline Drive.

Figure 1. Location of Jefferson Park Subdivision within Jefferson Parish.

The Manson, Camillia Garden, and Lower Kraak Ditches are located on the East Bank of Jefferson Parish (Figure 2). The drainage basins are bound by West Metairie Avenue on the north and the Mississippi River to the south. The east and west limits are Turnbull Drive/Jefferson Park Avenue and Central Avenue, respectively. The basins drain from the Mississippi River levee to West Metairie Avenue where they discharge into Canal No. 5 a distance of approximately 1.9 miles. Nearly 2/3 of the distance from the river levee, the Manson Ditch is intercepted by the ICRR Ditch/Hoey’s Canal drainage system and divides the basin into two (2) parts. The area south of the CNRR/ICRR rail embankment supplies the majority of the drainage area and flow. According to the June 2015 Revised Hydraulic Analysis by Digital Engineering and Imaging, Inc., the long distance of drain lines and flows contribute to a hydraulic gradient exceeding the natural ground elevation through portions of this basin.

The Manson Ditch/Lower Kraak Drainage Basins are approximately two (2) miles long and are totally enclosed in a subsurface system consisting of both single and dual drain lines. The Camillia Garden Ditch ties into the Manson Ditch system immediately south of the


CNRR/NOPBRR rail embankment. The ground slopes away from the Mississippi River levee towards Lake Pontchartrain within both the Manson and Lower Kraak Ditch Drainage Basins. This slope is disrupted by Jefferson Highway, the CNRR/NOPBRR rail embankment, Earhart Boulevard, and Airline Drive.

Manson Ditch • Two (2) existing 78” x 122” Reinforced Concrete Pipe Arches (RCPA)s located within

the paved roadway section at the crossing of Cleary Avenue at Canal No. 5 connect to two (2) twin arch pipes (54” x 88” and 45” x 73” RCPAs, respectively) at a 90 degree angle.

• From Canal No. 5 (West Metairie Avenue) to Airline Drive the ditch continues under Airline Drive through three (3) 54” x 88” RCPA drain lines.

• From Airline Drive to the south side of the CNRR/NOPBRR rail embankment Manson Ditch consists of twin drain lines, a 72” Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) and 54” RCP, constructed along and beneath the Earhart Boulevard/Cleary Avenue exit ramp, beneath the Earhart Expressway and beneath the CNRR/NOPBRR rail embankment.

• Under the rail embankment the size of the twin drain lines decrease in size to a 66” corrugated metal pipe (CMP) and a 48” RCP, respectively.

• The western pipe includes a 3” x 66” galvanized steel tunnel liner beneath the tracks with a 66” CMP for the remaining distance. The entire length of the eastern most pipe is a 48” RCP. See Figure 2.

• South of the rail embankment from the ICRR Ditch to Jefferson Highway, Manson Ditch consists of a single 66” RCPA drain line (Figure 2), located in the rear lot servitude, and continues from Jefferson Highway to River Road through a single RCPA drain line located in a drainage servitude along the east side of the Audubon Trace Apartments.

• Extensive development exists within and in the vicinity of this drainage servitude. • The only portion of the Manson Ditch that is unencumbered by surface development is

the portion running south from South Drive through the area of Jefferson Park Playground to River Road.

Lower Kraak Ditch • Located 1,100’ to the west of the Manson Ditch. • Surrounded with drain lines of various sizes and slopes from Canal No. 5 (West

Metairie Avenue) towards the CNRR/NOPBRR rail embankment. • The drainage basin, south of the rail embankment, is located from Central Avenue east

to the Camellia Garden Ditch Drainage Basin and from the rail embankment to the Mississippi River levee.

• South of the rail embankment, part of the system is almost 1’ lower than the crossing under the rail embankment.

• Excess flow from the Lower Kraak basin drains overland into the Manson Ditch Drainage Basin.

ICRR Ditch/Hoey’s Canal • The Manson Ditch along with the Camellia Garden Ditch to the west and the Arnoult,

Shrewsbury and Luke and Shirley Ditches to the east connect to the ICRR Ditch.


• Runs along the south side of the NOPBRR tracks to approximately 470’ west of the Causeway Boulevard where it crosses under the NOPBRR in a 72” RCP (Figure 2).

• Approximately 120’ further to the east the ICRR Ditch crosses under the NOPBRR in two (2) additional 60” pipes.

• The ditch then becomes Hoey’s Canal at the crossing of the NOPBRR tracks once on the north side.

• The three (3) pipe outfall crossing, the 72” and the two (2) 60” RCPs, are all constructed with different inverts.

• The Manson Ditch crossing of the CNRR/ICRR rail embankment is at the high point of the ICRR/Hoey’s Canal ditch system.

• The ICRR ditch slopes to the east, away from the Manson Ditch to an eventual outfall into Monticello/17th Street Canal.

Possible drainage choke points have been indicated at the outfall of the Manson Ditch into Canal No. 5 (Cleary Avenue/West Metairie Avenue) and at the outfall from the Manson Ditch system at the crossing of the CNRR/NOPBRR rail embankment (Figure 2). At the crossing of Cleary Avenue and Canal No. 5, twin arch pipes connect to Manson Ditch at a 90 degree angle. This connection, the flow from Manson Ditch, and a 170 cubic feet per second (cfs) flow in Canal No. 5, from the east to the west, all add to an increase in the hydraulic gradient along the Manson Ditch. Consequently, a reverse flow in Canal No. 5 has been observed during periods of heavy flows coming from the Manson Ditch.

In addition, the ICRR Ditch/Hoey’s Canal drainage system acts as both an outfall or adds flow to the Manson Ditch system, depending on which system has the highest water surface elevation (WSE). Both the Manson and Camelia Ditches outfall into the ICRR Ditch at the Manson Ditch crossing of the CNRR/NOPBRR rail embankment. The combination of the elevation of the hydraulic gradient at this location and depending on the water surface in the ICRR/Hoey’s Canal system can slow the flow in the Manson/Camelia Ditch system from the south.


Figure 2. Aerial of existing drainage features in the Manson Ditch Drainage Basin (Digital Engineering and Imaging, Inc., Revised Hydraulic Analysis June 2015).


2.0 PURPOSE AND NEED

The HMGP provides grants to states and local governments to implement long-term hazard mitigation measures after a major disaster declaration. The purpose of the HMGP is to reduce the loss of life and property due to natural disasters and to enable mitigation measures to be implemented during the immediate recovery from a disaster. The purpose of the project is to reduce flooding in and near the Jefferson Park Subdivision and to provide flood control measures to protect the health, safety, and property of the Jefferson Park Subdivision residents and surrounding areas during sustained rainfall events. The specific need of this proposed project is to effectively alleviate localized flooding experienced during and after major storm events.

The Manson Ditch drainage area consists of highly developed residential, commercial, and industrial land. Street and structure flooding have been a recurrent problem in portions of the drainage basins for years due to ditches overtopping and the current drainage system unable to handle the amount of storm water flow generated. During heavy rain events, the residential area of the Jefferson Park Subdivision (Figures 1 and 2), which is located south of the Manson Ditch, has experienced periodic flooding, up to 1.2’ in some cases. Existing flooding conditions in the subdivision can occur for approximately 5.5 hours during a 10-year storm event. The applicant needs to alleviate flooding in the Jefferson Park Subdivision because the existing drainage system does not provide adequate flood protection during heavy rain events. For the Jefferson Park Subdivision, damages are incurred as a result of recurrent street flooding which causes roads to be impassible. For many of the roads in the benefit area there are no detour routes.

3.0 ALTERNATIVES

NEPA requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of a proposed action and any reasonable alternatives on the human and natural environment. Therefore, a key step in the EA process is to identify a range of reasonable alternatives to be studied in detail in the EA. This step is commonly referred to as an alternatives development and screening process. The purpose is to identify reasonable alternatives to the proposed action to allow for meaningful subsequent comparison of how these alternatives may affect the human and natural environment. This section describes alternatives proposed and considered in addressing the purpose and need.

3.1 No Action Alternative

Implementation of the No Action Alternative would entail no hazard mitigation measures or enhanced flood reduction in the Jefferson Park Subdivision. Consequently, this alternative would not provide any type of protection to residents of the area during peak flow events, future storms, or other emergency situations. Under this alternative, flooding would likely continue to occur and both insured and uninsured losses would be expected.

3.2 Preferred Action Alternative: Jefferson Park Subdivision/Manson Ditch Drainage Improvements

Solutions to solving the drainage problems in the Jefferson Park Subdivision/Manson Ditch Drainage Basin would be to improve the system hydraulics and to remove flow from or prevent


flow from entering the subsurface system. The proposed project is designed to provide protection to at least a 10-year storm event. The preferred action includes constructing drainage improvements that would 1) isolate the Jefferson Park Subdivision from the area north of the NOPBRR railroad and 2) remove flow from the drainage basin, retain it, and then return it to the basin as WSE decreases. See Figure 3.

Figure 3. Project location in Jefferson, LA.

The proposed project includes installing flap gates at the Lower Kraak and Manson Ditches to isolate the Jefferson Park Subdivision from the north of the NOPBRR during a heavy rain event. The installation of the flap gates would allow the Lower Kraak and Manson Ditches to operate in their current configuration under normal conditions and would minimize back flow. The outfalls would be connected by installing a 48” RCP drain line into the ICRR Ditch from the existing pumping station on the Upper Kraak Ditch (Figure 4, Layer 1) to Manson Ditch (Figure 4, Layer 5) and connect the outfall with a drain line into the ICRR Ditch to direct flow from these ditches to the Upper Kraak Pump Station. The new 16” drain line, a high density polyethylene (HDPE) sewer force main, would be directionally drilled to a maximum of 17’ deep. Jacking and receiving pits would line up and tie-in with the existing 16” AC force main, to be abandoned. The ICRR Ditch, between Manson Ditch and Arnoult Road (Figures 5 and 6, Layers 5-9) would be improved by regrading and reshaping the side slopes.


In 2008, as part of the construction of the Earhart-Causeway Interchange Project, the Parish constructed a drainage detention pond just north of the Earhart Boulevard/Causeway Boulevard interchange to reduce flows in the Hoey’s Canal (Figure 7). It is proposed that a 200 cfs pump station (Latitude 29.9698, Longitude -90.1592) would be installed on the ICRR ditch to the east of Shrewsbury Road, between the existing 62” x 102” RCPA crossing under Shrewsbury Road and the existing three (3) pipe outfall (72” and two (2) 60” RCPs) into Hoey’s Canal. The discharge lines of the new pump would cross under the NOPBRR tracks, the ICRR lead track, and the ICRR mainline track, connecting it to the detention pond (Figure 7) at Causeway Boulevard and Earhart Boulevard.

After a heavy rain event, water from the detention pond would empty by gravity through two (2) 42” x 0.625” steel discharge pipes and one (1) 18” x 0.375” steel pipe, each with a length of 280’, back into the Hoey’s Canal. All equipment and materials for the detention pond work would be located in this area. By lowering the WSE in the ICRR Ditch, the hydraulic gradient out of the Jefferson Park Subdivision would be lowered, hence reducing the flooding in this area. The area detention pond would be graded to provide increased storage and positive flow to the outfall pipes. Site photographs are exhibited in Appendix A. The extensive site plan drawings are shown in Appendix B.


Figure 4. Aerial plans of the proposed Jefferson Park Subdivision/Manson Ditch Drainage Improvements illustrating the installation of the 16" HDPE sewer force main, the 48” RCP at the Upper Kraak Ditch continuing to Manson Ditch (Figure 5, Layer 5), and flap gate at the Lower Kraak Ditch (Layer 2).


Figure 5. Aerial plans of the proposed Jefferson Park Subdivision/Manson Ditch Drainage Improvements illustrating the continuation of the 16" HDPE sewer force main, the 48” RCP to Manson Ditch (Layer 5), flap gate at Manson Ditch and regrading of the ICRR Ditch.


Figure 6. Aerial plans of the proposed Jefferson Park Subdivision/Manson Ditch Drainage Improvements illustrating the continuation of the 16" HDPE sewer force main and regrading of the ICRR Ditch to Arnoult Road.


Figure 7. Aerial plan for the proposed Shrewsbury Pump Station, Jefferson, LA. Acquired from Digital Engineering and Imaging, Inc., Revised Hydraulic Analysis June 2015.


3.3 Considered Alternative: Increase the Size of Drain Lines Running North-South between Morris Place and the ICRR Ditch

The considered alternative proposes to increase the size of the transmission drain lines that run north-south in the Jefferson Park Subdivision area between Morris Place and the ICRR Ditch. These drain lines are located in drainage servitudes along the backsides of adjacent residential properties. This alternative requires property acquisitions. Additionally, there are low income and minority populations in the area per the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) NEPAssist Tool. This alternative meets the purpose and need and is carried forward for consideration throughout the assessment.

3.4 Considered Alternative: Drainage Improvements to the Crossing of Cleary Avenue at Canal No. 5

During the project evaluation phase, a number of improvements to the drainage system (both north and south of the ICRR tracks), were assessed. In evaluating improvements north of the railroad tracks, the alternatives evaluated included improvements to Canal No. 5, improvements to the drainage along Cleary Avenue, and improving drainage north of Airline Drive. However the results of these evaluations had little effect on improving the drainage capacity of the Manson Ditch service area. This alternative did not fully meet the purpose and need and was dismissed from further consideration.

3.5 Considered Alternative: Installation of a Pump Station on the ICRR Ditch to Discharge Water to the Mississippi River

Another alternative considered the possibility of installing a pump station on the ICRR Ditch to convey drainage from the Jefferson Park Subdivision area and discharging the effluent south into the Mississippi River. This option was considered impractical due to the size of the pumps required to convey a distance of 5,500 linear feet to the Mississippi River. Also there was not a direct route for these discharge pipes to be placed and numerous property acquisitions would be required due to the densely populated nature of this area. This alternative did not fully meet the purpose and need was dismissed from further consideration.

4.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS

4.1 Impact Summary

The following matrices summarize the results of the environmental review process (Tables 1 and 2). On November 23, 2016, FEMA Environmental and Historic Preservation (EHP) Department consulted with resource agencies by sending a Solicitation of Views (SOV). FEMA-EHP has documented the agency responses in the Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Matrix. See Appendix D for copies of the responses from the resource agencies.

FEMA-EHP has reviewed and assessed the preferred action, the no action alternative, and a considered alternative. Potential environmental impacts that were found to be negligible are


not further evaluated. Resource areas with the potential for impacts of minor, moderate, or major intensity are further developed in the subsequent sections.

Under the No Action alternative, there would be no improvement to the flood system hydraulics or removal and/or prevention of flow from entering the subsurface drainage system. Consequently, the community would be deprived of the benefits of this mitigation proposal. The no action alternative would result in the risk of continued flooding and ongoing impacts to local infrastructure. If the area were to continue to flood, Jefferson Park Subdivision would be in danger of loss of life and property damage. In addition, this would result in continued hazardous conditions for not only the residents of Jefferson, but also businesses and emergency responders who utilize the roadways and live in this area. This alternative does not meet the purpose and need, but will serve as a baseline comparison of impacts from other action alternatives. For some resources, the no action alternative would not result in any adverse impacts.

Definitions of impact intensity are described below:

Negligible: The resource area (e.g., geology) would either not be affected, changes would be non-detectable, or if detected, would have effects that would be slight and local. Impacts would be well below regulatory standards, as applicable. Effects to Cultural Resources would either be non-existent, i.e., a building is less than 50 years old and/or no known archeological sites are present on the site, or the project is determined not likely to affect with State Historic Preservation Officer/Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO/THPO) concurrence. No mitigation is needed.

Minor: Changes to the resource area would be measurable, although the changes would be small and localized. Impacts would be within or below regulatory standards, as applicable. Mitigation measures would reduce any potential adverse effects. Effects to Cultural Resources are not likely (i.e., building is at least 50 years old and/or known archeological sites are near the project area), but specific conditions/mitigation are sufficient to maintain the determination.

Moderate: Changes to the resource would be measurable and have both localized and regional scale impacts. Impacts would be within or below regulatory standards, but historical conditions would be altered on a short-term basis. Mitigation measures would be necessary to reduce any potential adverse effects. Effects to Cultural Resources are likely (i.e., building is 50 years old and/or known archaeological sites are in the project area. Impacts would have at least local and possibly regional scale impacts).

Major: Changes would be readily measurable and would have substantial consequences on a local and regional level. Impacts would exceed regulatory standards. Mitigation measures to offset the adverse effects would be required to reduce impacts, although long-term changes to the resource would be expected. Effects to Cultural Resources are likely (i.e., building is at least 50 years old and/or known archeological sites are in the project area. Impacts would have substantial consequences on a local and regional level).


Table 1: Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Matrix Preferred Action: Jefferson Park Subdivision/Manson Ditch Drainage Improvements

Resource Area Impact Impact Summary Agency Coordination / Permits Mitigation/Conditions

Geology and Soils

Negligible The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA: Subtitle I of Title XV, Section 1539-1549) was enacted in 1981 and is intended to minimize the impact federal actions may have on the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. It assures that, to the extent possible, federal programs and policies are administered to be compatible with state and local farmland protection policies and programs. Projects are subject to FPPA requirements if they may irreversibly convert farmland (directly or indirectly) to nonagricultural use and are completed by a federal agency or with assistance from a federal agency. Per review of the National Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) Web Soil Survey, the soils located on the proposed project area are predominantly composed of Cancienne silt loam [Co], Cancienne silty clay loam [Cm], Harahan clay [Ha], and Schriever clay [Sk], which are classified as prime farmland soils. However, the project area is densely developed and considered an urban area. Allemands muck [Ae] is not classified as prime farmland soil. Per NRCS response, the proposed construction areas are within urban areas and are exempt from the rules and regulations of the FPPA. No impacts to NRCS work in the vicinity are anticipated. Potential for short-term localized increase in soil erosion during construction.

A SOV was prepared and sent out to the NRCS by the FEMA on 07/24/2015. NRCS response dated 07/24/2015. See Appendix D Agency Correspondence. NRCS Web Soil Survey was accessed on 01/24/2017 at: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/ confirmed soils on the site are within an urban area and exempt.

Implement construction Best Management Practices (BMPs); install silt fences/straw bales to reduce sedimentation. Area soils would be covered and/or wetted during construction. If fill is stored on site as part of unit installation or removal, the contractor would be required to appropriately cover it. See Section 6.0 Conditions and Mitigation Measures.

Hydrology and Floodplains (E.O. 11988)

Minor Executive Order (E.O. 11988) (Floodplain Management) requires Federal agencies to avoid direct or indirect support or development within the 100-year floodplain whenever there is a practicable alternative. FEMA’s regulations for complying with E.O. 11988 are found at 44 CFR Part 9. Jefferson Parish enrolled in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) on 10/01/1970. Per preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panel Number 22051C0185F, dated 02/15/2016, project is located in Zone AE (EL -2 to EL 3), areas within the 100-year flood, Base Flood Elevations (BFE) determined and Shaded Zone X, areas inundated by 0.2% annual chance flooding and protected by levees from 100-year flood. Per Jefferson Parish Advisory Base Flood Elevation (ABFE) Maps LA-CC28 and LA-DD28, dated 06/05/2006, project is located in Zone AE (ABFE of EL 4.5 or 3’ above Highest Existing Adjacent Grade (HEAG)) and Shaded X Zone (ABFE of 3’ above HEAG). See Section 4.2 Hydrology and Floodplains, and 8-step process in Appendix E.

Jefferson Parish preliminary FIRM panel 22051C0185F dated 02/15/2016 and ABFE Maps LA-CC28 and LA-DD28, dated 06/05/2006.

The Applicant is required to coordinate with the local floodplain administrator regarding floodplain permit(s) prior to the start of any activities. New construction must be compliant with current codes and standards. As per 44 CFR 9.11(d) mitigation or minimization standards must be applied, where possible. Per 44 CFR 9.11(d)(6), no project should be built to a floodplain management standard that is less protective than what the community has adopted in local ordinances through their participation in the NFIP. All coordination pertaining to these activities and Applicant compliance with any conditions should be documented and copies forwarded to the state and FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project files. See Section 6.0 Conditions and Mitigation Measures.

https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/




Wetlands (E.O. 11990)

Negligible E.O. 11990, Protection of Wetlands, directs Federal Agencies to minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands and to preserve and enhance the values of wetlands for federally funded projects. FEMA regulations for complying with E.O. 11990 are found at 44 CFR Part 9, Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) – National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map queried on 01/24/2017 at https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html shows mapped wetlands are not present in the proposed project area. No apparent wetlands were observed during the FEMA-EHP site assessment at the proposed project site. Per correspondence from the EPA Region 6 Wetlands Section, jurisdictional waters of the U.S. may occur on the proposed project site. Per U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) response MVN-2017-00028-ES dated 08/17/2017, the project area is not in a wetland subject to Corps of Engineers’ jurisdiction and adverse impacts to any Corps of Engineers project is not anticipated.

A SOV was prepared and sent out to the USACE and EPA by the FEMA on 11/23/2016. USACE response dated 08/17/2017. EPA response dated 12/06/2016. See Appendix D Agency Correspondence.

Any changes or modifications to the proposed project will require a revised wetland jurisdictional determination. Off-site locations of activities such as borrow, disposals, haul-and detour-roads and work mobilization site developments may be subject to the Department of the Army regulatory requirements and may have an impact to a Department of Army project. The applicant must comply with all NWP 18 conditions listed in the USACE General Permit (MVN-2017-00028-ES) issued on 08/17/2017, and will expire on 03/18/2022. See Section 6.0 Conditions and Mitigation Measures.

Surface Water and Water Quality

Minor USACE regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S., including wetlands, pursuant to Parts 401 and 404 of the CWA. Section 402 of the CWA, entitled National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), authorizes and sets forth standards for state administered permitting programs regulating the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters within the state’s jurisdiction. The USACE also regulates the building of structures in waters of the U.S. pursuant to Parts 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA). Per USACE response MVN-2017-00028-ES dated 08/17/2017, a Department of the Army permit, Nationwide Permit (NWP) 18, was issued. Although there is potential for short-term localized increase in sedimentation during construction, the project as proposed would not have significant long term impacts to water quality. See Section 4.4 for further discussion of impacts.

A SOV was prepared and sent out to the USACE and Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) by the FEMA on 11/23/2016. LDEQ response dated 12/14/2016. USACE NWP 18 issued on 08/17/2017. See Appendix D Agency Correspondence.

The applicant must comply with all NWP 18 conditions listed in the USACE General Permit (MVN-2017-00028-ES) issued on 08/17/2017, and will expire on 03/18/2022. The applicant must provide a signed certification stating that the authorized work was conducted in accordance with the permit, including any special conditions, and that mitigation (if required) was completed in accordance with the permit. If the project results in a discharge to waters of the state, submittal of a Louisiana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (LPDES) application may be necessary. If the project results in a discharge of wastewater to an existing wastewater treatment system, that wastewater treatment system may need to modify its LPDES permit before accepting the additional wastewater. All precautions should be observed to control nonpoint source pollution from construction activities. LDEQ has storm water general permits for construction areas equal to or greater than one (1) acre. The Applicant must contact the LDEQ Water Permits Division at (225) 219-9371 to determine if the proposed project requires a permit. Water softeners generate wastewaters that may require special limitations depending on local water quality considerations. If water system improvements include water softeners, contact LDEQ Water Permits to determine if special water quality based limitations will be necessary. See Section 6.0 Conditions and Mitigation Measures.

https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html



Groundwater Negligible The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was originally passed by Congress in 1974 to protect public health by regulating the nation's public drinking water supply. The Sole Source Aquifer (SSA) Protection Program is authorized by Section 1424(e) of the SDWA. The EPA defines a sole or principal source aquifer as one which supplies at least 50% of the drinking water consumed in the area overlying the aquifer. EPA guidelines also stipulate these areas can have no alternative drinking water consumed in the area overlying the aquifer. EPA guidelines also stipulate that these areas can have no alternative drinking water source(s) which could physically, legally, and economically supply all those who depend upon the aquifer for drinking water Per LDEQ response dated 12/14/2016, the project as proposed is not expected to affect any groundwater. Per NEPAssist database search and EPA response dated 03/20/2017, the Jefferson Parish project area does not lie within the boundaries of a designated sole source aquifer system. The proposed project should not have an adverse effect on the quality of the ground water underlying the project site.

A SOV was prepared and sent out to the EPA and LDEQ by the FEMA on 11/23/2016. LDEQ response dated 12/14/2016. EPA response dated 3/20/2017. EPA NEPAssist Tool (http://nepassisttool.epa.gov/nepassist/entry.aspx.) accessed 03/20/2017. See Appendix D Agency Correspondence.

All precautions should be observed to protect the groundwater of the region. BMPs should be implemented to ensure groundwater is protected. Water softeners generate wastewaters that may require special limitations depending on local water quality considerations. If the water system improvements include water softeners, contact the LDEQ Water Permits Division to determine if special water quality-based limitations will be necessary. If any solid or hazardous wastes, or soils and/or groundwater contaminated with hazardous constituents are encountered during this project, notification to LDEQ’s Single-Point-of-Contact (SPOC) at (225) 219-3640 is required. Additionally, precautions should be taken to protect workers from these hazardous constituents. If the project will include a sanitary wastewater treatment facility, a Sewage Sludge and Biosolids Use or Disposal Permit is required. An application or Notice of Intent will be required if the sludge management practice includes preparing biosolids for land application or preparing sewage sludge to be hauled to a landfill. Additional information may be obtained on the LDEQ website at http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/portal/tabid/2296/Default.aspx or by contacting the LDEQ Water Permits Division at (225) 219-9371. See Section 6.0 Conditions and Mitigation Measures.

Wild and Scenic River

Negligible The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Act), (P. L. 90-543 as amended: 16 U.S.C. 1271-1287) established a method for providing federal protection for certain free-flowing rivers, preserving them and their immediate environments for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. There are no Wild and Scenic Rivers in the project vicinity.

National Wild and Scenic Rivers https://www.rivers.gov/louisiana.php queried on 01/24/2017.

Coastal Resources

Minor The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA, or the Act) encourages the management of coastal zone areas and provides grants to be used in maintaining coastal zone areas. It is intended to ensure that federal activities are consistent with state programs for the protection and, where, possible, enhancement of the nation’s coastal zones. The project site is located within the Louisiana Coastal Zone and would require a Coastal Use Permit (CUP). See Section 4.3 Coastal Resources. The USFWS regulates federal funding in Coastal Barrier Resource System (CBRS) units under the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA). This Act protects undeveloped coastal barriers and related areas (i.e., Otherwise Protected Areas [OPAs]) by prohibiting or limiting direct or indirect Federal funding of projects that support development in these areas. According to the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (LDNR) maps, the project site is not located within the CBRS.

LDNR issued a CUP P#20170371 on 05/01/2017. See Appendix D Agency Correspondence.

The applicant shall comply with all conditions of the required permit. All coordination pertaining to these activities and applicant compliance with any conditions should be documented and copies forwarded to the state and FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project file.

http://nepassisttool.epa.gov/nepassist/entry.aspx


http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/portal/tabid/2296/Default.aspx

https://www.rivers.gov/louisiana.php



Air Quality Negligible The CAA requires the State of Louisiana to adopt ambient air quality standards to protect the public from potentially harmful amounts of pollutants. The LDEQ has designated areas meeting the state’s ambient air quality standards by their monitoring and modeling program efforts. During construction, there is potential for short-term localized increase in vehicle emissions and dust particles. Currently, Jefferson Parish is classified as attainment with the National Ambient Air Quality Standard and has no general conformity determination obligations. No long-term reduction in air quality is expected once construction activities cease.

A SOV was prepared and sent out to the LDEQ by the FEMA on 11/23/2016. LDEQ response dated 12/14/2016. See Appendix D Agency Correspondence.

Vehicle operation times would be kept to a minimum. Area soils must be covered and/or wetted during construction to minimize dust. See Section 6.0 Conditions and Mitigation Measures.

Vegetation and Wildlife

Negligible The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) provides the basic authority for the USFWS involvement in evaluating impacts to fish and wildlife from proposed water resource development projects. It requires that fish and wildlife resources receive equal consideration to other project features. It also requires Federal agencies that construct, license or permit water resource development projects to first consult with the Service (and the National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS] in some instances) and State fish and wildlife agency regarding the impacts on fish and wildlife resources and measures to mitigate these impacts. The site is heavily pre-disturbed, in a developed urban area. No impacts to vegetation and wildlife are anticipated. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) SOV response letter dated 12/09/2016 states after careful review of their database, no impacts to rare, threatened, or endangered species or critical habitats within Louisiana's boundary are anticipated for the proposed project. No state or federal parks, wildlife refuges or scenic streams are known at the specified site within Louisiana's boundaries.

A SOV was prepared and sent out to the LDWF by the FEMA on 11/23/2016. LDWF response letter dated 12/09/2016. See Appendix D Agency Correspondence.

Extreme care must be taken during the construction process through the appropriate use and maintenance of BMPs. If at any time Heritage tracked species are encountered within the project area, please contact the Louisiana Natural Heritage Program (LNHP) Data Manager at 225-765-2643. See Section 6.0 Conditions and Mitigation Measures.

Threatened and Endangered Species (ESA Section 7)

Negligible The ESA of 1973 prohibits the taking of listed, threatened, and endangered species unless specifically authorized by permit from the USFWS or the NMFS. Per USFWS review dated 9/25/2017, the project, as proposed, will have no effect on Federal trust resources currently protected by the ESA of 1973. Per LDWF project response dated 12/09/2016, no impacts to rare, threatened, or endangered species or critical habitats within Louisiana's boundary are anticipated for the proposed project. No state or federal parks, wildlife refuges or scenic streams are known at the specified site within Louisiana's boundaries.

A SOV was prepared and sent out to the LDWF by the FEMA on 11/23/2016. LDWF response dated 12/09/2016. FEMA utilized the Louisiana ESA Technical Assistance Tool (https://www.fws.gov/southeast/lafayette/project-review/) on 9/25/2017. See Appendix D Agency Correspondence.

To ensure continued compliance with the ESA, reinitiate consultation when: 1) new information reveals that the action may affect listed species or designated critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this consultation, 2) the action is modified in a manner that causes effects to listed species or designated critical habitat not considered in the consultation, or 3) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that the action may affect. If the proposed project has not been initiated within one (1) year from the date of USFWS review (9/25/2017), follow-up coordination with FEMA should be accomplished prior to making expenditures because threatened and endangered species information is updated annually. If the scope or location of the proposed project is changed, coordination should occur as soon as changes are made and FEMA should be notified for further coordination with the USFWS. See Section 6.0 Conditions and Mitigation Measures.


Cultural Resources (National Historic Preservation Act Section 106)

Negligible The consideration of impacts to historic and cultural resources is mandated under Section 101(b) 4 of the NEPA as implemented by 40 CFR Part 1501-1508. Section 106 of the NHPA requires Federal Agencies to take into account their effects on historic properties (i.e. historic and cultural resources, including American Indian Cultural Sites) and allow the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) an opportunity to comment. FEMA reviewed the Preferred Alternative under the terms of the Programmatic Agreement Among the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Louisiana State Historic Preservation Officer, the Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness, and Participating Tribes (2016 Louisiana Statewide PA), dated December 21, 2016 (https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/128322). The Louisiana Statewide PA was created to streamline the Section 106 review process. Additionally, it is policy of the Federal government to consult with Indian Tribal Governments and a Government-to-Government basis as required in E.O. 13175. FEMA has chosen to address potential impacts to historic properties through the “Section 106 consultation process” of NHPA as implemented through 36 CFR Part 800. On June 23, 2015, and April 21, 2017, FEMA Historic Preservation (HP) Staff consulted the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) database, the Louisiana Division of Archaeology (LDOA), Louisiana Cultural Resources Map (LDOA Website), and historic aerial photography. Map research included the following reference materials: the United States Department of Agriculture Web Soil Survey (http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov), U.S. Geological Survey Quadrangle Maps (http://nationalmap.gov/historical), and other available historic maps. Additional background information consulted included: the Louisiana Cultural Resources Management Bibliography (LDOA Website), LDOA Site Forms, and pertinent site and survey reports regarding previous investigations within 1-mile (1.6 km) of the Area of Potential Effect (APE). Additionally, a site visit conducted on July 1, 2015, by FEMA HP staff. This data was evaluated by FEMA using the National Register Criteria. FEMA determined there would be “No Adverse Effect” to historic properties for the original project proposal in a letter dated July 23, 2015, which the SHPO concurred with on August 10, 2015. FEMA consulted with the affected tribes in accordance to FEMA’s Statewide PA, dated August 17, 2009, and amended July 22, 2011. The Muscogee Creek Nation (MCN) submitted a written response concurring with the determination. The remaining Tribes did not object within the 30-day regulatory timeframe. FEMA has determined that there are three (3) historic properties as defined in 36 CFR 800.16(l) within the immediate vicinity of project area (all railroad tracks). None of the three (3) railroads would be affected by this undertaking. Trenchless technology would be utilized to install culverts and no alterations would be made to the rail lines. In addition to the three (3) historic properties identified, during the site visit FEMA HP staff identified a marked cemetery near the project area. However, it is located outside of the APE. In an abundance of caution, FEMA would inform the Applicant of the presence of the cemetery and instruct that no work or staging would be done within a ‘Zone of No Work’ around the cemetery. Based on FEMA’s historic background research, site file research,

FEMA submitted a letter of “No Adverse Effect” to historic properties dated July 23, 2015; SHPO concurred on August 10, 2015. FEMA consulted with the affected tribes: the Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas, the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, the Jena Band of Choctaw Indians, the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, the MCN, the Seminole Tribe of Florida, and the Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana. The MCN concurred with the determination. The remaining Tribes did not object within the regulatory timeframes.

Zone of No Work: FEMA has informed the Applicant of the presence of a cemetery in close proximity to the project area bounded by Scott Street., Saia Lane; the ICRR canal, and Causeway Boulevard and has established a buffer zone and instructed that no work will be done within its boundaries. Louisiana Unmarked Human Burial Sites Preservation Act: If human bone or unmarked grave(s) are present within the project area, compliance with the Louisiana Unmarked Human Burial Sites Preservation Act (R.S. 8:671 et seq.) is required. The Applicant shall notify the law enforcement agency of the jurisdiction where the remains are located within 24 hours of the discovery. The Applicant shall also notify FEMA and the Louisiana Division of Archaeology at 225-342-8170 within 72 hours of the discovery. Inadvertent Discovery Clause: If during the course of work, archaeological artifacts (prehistoric or historic) are discovered, the Applicant shall stop work in the vicinity of the discovery and take all reasonable measures to avoid or minimize harm to the finds. The Applicant shall inform their, GOSHEP State Applicant Liaison and Hazard Mitigation Assistance contacts at FEMA, who will in turn contact FEMA HP staff. The Applicant will not proceed with work until FEMA HP completes consultation with the SHPO, and others as appropriate. See Section 6.0 Conditions and Mitigation Measures.



and field visit, FEMA has determined that the entire project area is very disturbed and there is very little potential for intact archaeological resources within the project area and it is unlikely that this APE possess NRHP-eligible archaeological deposits. Following the July 23, 2015, SHPO/Tribal consultation, FEMA received additional Scope of Work (SOW) that included two (2) jacking pits and a receiving pit added for staging directional boring and regrading of the existing drainage ditch side slopes. Based on the review of plans and of the narrative SOW changes, no re-consultation with SHPO, Affected Tribes, or other parties is required as all additional work items meet Programmatic Allowances, of the Louisiana Statewide PA. The applicant must comply with the NHPA conditions described in this document (No Work Zone, Louisiana Unmarked Human Burial Sites Preservation Act, and Inadvertent Discovery Clause).

Environmental Justice (E.O. 12898) Socioeconomics

Negligible E.O. 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” was signed on 02/11/1994. The E.O. directs federal agencies to make achieving environmental justice part of their missions by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and/or adverse human health, environmental, economic, and social effects of its programs, policies and activities on minority or low-income populations. According to the 2010 U.S. Census Demographic Profile of the City of Jefferson, LA; the total population is 31,594 with 17.3% Black/African American, 79.5% White, 1.7% Hispanic/Latino and 0.2% Asian. The median household income is $39,063 and 21.1% of the population is below poverty level. Per NEPAssist database search of the project area the total population is 5,732 with 35.1% Black/African American, 59.4% White, 8.7% Hispanic/Latino and 0.5% Asian. The low income percent of the population in the project area is 44%. The project would reduce flooding in the area, thus providing a benefit to all populations in the area.

U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, Data for Jefferson, in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana accessed 01/24/2017. EPA NEPAssist Tool (http://nepassisttool.epa.gov/nepassist/entry.aspx.) accessed 06/01/2017.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

Negligible The objectives of RCRA are to protect human health and the environment from the potential hazards of waste disposal, to conserve energy and natural resources, to reduce the amount of waste generated, and to ensure that wastes are managed in an environmentally sound manner. RCRA regulates the management of solid waste (e.g., garbage), hazardous waste, and underground storage tanks holding petroleum products or certain chemicals. Project involves excavation of soil. All debris would be disposed of at a permitted landfill. All equipment and material storage would be located within the railroad right of way (ROW). The goal is to use the excavated material to back fill above the pipes after installation. Should any excavated material not be needed on site, the material would be tested according to the Jefferson Parish Environmental Department standards, and then moved to a parish designated dumping site.

A SOV was prepared and sent out to the LDEQ by the FEMA on 11/23/2016. LDEQ response dated 12/14/2016. See Appendix D Agency Correspondence.

Applicant must take any necessary steps to obtain and/or update all necessary approvals and environmental permits regarding this proposed project. Unusable equipment, debris and material shall be disposed of in an approved manner and location. The applicant shall handle, manage, and dispose of petroleum products, hazardous materials and/or toxic waste in accordance with all local, state and Federal agency requirements. All coordination pertaining to these activities should be documented and copies forwarded to the state and FEMA as part of the permanent project files. All debris would be disposed of at a permitted landfill. See Section 6.0 Conditions and Mitigation Measures.





Noise Negligible Noise is commonly defined as unwanted or unwelcome sound, and most commonly measured in decibels (dB) on the A-weighted scale, which is the scale most similar to the range of sounds that the human ear can hear. Sound is federally regulated by the Noise Control Act of 1972, which charges the EPA with preparing guidelines for acceptable ambient noise levels. EPA guidelines, and those of many other federal agencies, state that outdoor sound levels in excess of 55 dB day-night average sound level (DNL) are “normally unacceptable” for noise-sensitive land uses including residences, schools, or hospitals. There are ten (10) schools, two (2) hospitals, and numerous residences near the project area. During the construction period there would be a short-term increase in noise levels.

Code of Ordinances - Jefferson Parish in Chapter 20 - OFFENSES AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS/ARTICLE V.-OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC PEACE, Sec. 20-102. Found on https://www.municode.com/library/la/jefferson_parish/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICOOR_CH20OFMIPR_ARTVOFAGPUPE_S20-102NO accessed 01/24/2017.

Mitigation and abatement measures will be required to reduce the noise levels to a range that would be considered acceptable. The applicant must comply with the local noise ordinance. Jefferson Parish Ordinance for dB limits is as follows: Industrial at all times 75 dB Commercial 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m. 65 dB, and 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m. 60 dB Residential 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m. 60 dB, and 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m. 55 dB Multifamily dwelling 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m. 50 dB and 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m. 45 dB See Section 6.0 Conditions and Mitigation Measures.

Public Safety and Access

Negligible Congress passed the Occupational and Safety Health Act (OSHA) to ensure worker and workplace safety. The goal was to make sure employers provide their workers a place of employment free from recognized hazards to safety and health, such as exposure to toxic chemicals, excessive noise levels, mechanical dangers, heat or cold stress, or unsanitary conditions. During construction heavy equipment would be located in a populated area. Impacts to public safety and security would be minimized with mitigation measures, including following regulations.

The contractor must place fencing around the work area perimeters to protect nearby residents from vehicular traffic. To minimize worker and public health and safety risks from project construction and closure, all construction and closure work must be done using qualified personnel trained in the proper use of construction equipment, including all appropriate safety precautions. Additionally, all activities must be conducted in a safe manner in accordance with the standards specified in OSHA regulations and the USACE safety manual. The contractor must post appropriate signage and fencing to minimize potential adverse public safety concerns. See also Section 6.0 Conditions and Mitigation Measures.

Traffic and Transportation

Negligible According to the Hydrologic & Hydraulics Study (H&H), the average rainfall and road closure time between 2005 and 2013 were roughly 3” of rain closing the roads for five (5) hours. Commuters were forced to use Central Avenue as an alternate route from Airline Highway to Jefferson Highway resulting in an additional six (6) minute and 1.6 mile detour. This proposed project would decrease road closures during a 10-year storm event and allow vehicles to have access to a detour route. During construction phases, the area would not be accessible to the public, however, no effects to traffic and transportation would be expected since these activities will be occurring within the railroad rights-of-way away from public streets. Construction truck and equipment traffic volumes along the access routes would increase temporarily during work activities.

Appropriate signage and barriers should be in place prior to construction activities in order to alert pedestrians and motorists of project activities and traffic pattern changes. The contractor should implement traffic control measures, as necessary. See Section 6.0 Conditions and Mitigation Measures.

https://www.municode.com/library/la/jefferson_parish/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICOOR_CH20OFMIPR_ARTVOFAGPUPE_S20-102NO






Hazardous Materials and Toxic Waste

Negligible The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund, authorizes EPA to response to releases, or threatened releases, of hazardous substances that may endanger public health, welfare, or the environment, that might come from any source. Superfund also grants EPA authority to force parties responsible for environmental contamination to clean it up or to reimburse response costs incurred by EPA. The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 created the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). EPCRA regulations establish several types of reporting obligations for facilities that store or manage specified chemical, including chemicals used by the construction industry, such as solvents. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) allows EPA to collect data on chemicals to evaluate, assess, mitigate, and controls risks which may be posed by their manufacture, processing, and use. TSCA regulates polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in electrical equipment, including pole-mounted transformers (PMTs) which are present in and near the project corridor. The PCB status of PMTs in the corridor is not known. Per NEPAssist database search, no CERCLA, TSCA, radiation, toxic release, or Brownfields sites have been identified within 0.5 mile of the site. Forty-three (43) hazardous waste (RCRA) facilities are located within 0.5 mile of the site. Per the LDEQ response dated12/14/2016, the agency has no objections based on the information provided in the SOV submittal. However, conditions were included in the LDEQ response.

A SOV was prepared and sent out to the LDEQ by the FEMA on 11/23/2016. LDEQ response dated 12/14/2016. See Appendix D Agency Correspondence. EPA NEPAssist Tool (http://nepassisttool.epa.gov/nepassist/entry.aspx.) accessed 03/20/2017.

The construction contractor shall comply with CERCLA hazardous substance release reporting requirement, if an applicable release occurs. If any hazardous wastes, or soils and/or groundwater contaminated with hazardous constituents are encountered during the project, notification to LDEQ’s Single-Point-of-Contact at 225-219-3640 is required. Precautions should also be taken to protect workers from hazardous constituents. Notify the National Response Center (NRC) at 800-424-8802 if an oil discharge to water occurs. Any renovation or remodeling must comply with Louisiana Administrative Code (LAC) 33:III.Chapter 28, Lead-Based Paint Activities; LAC 33:III.Chapter 27, Asbestos-Containing Materials in Schools and State Buildings (includes all training and accreditation); and LAC 33:III.5151, Emission Standard for Asbestos for any renovations or demolitions. See Section 6.0 Conditions and Mitigation Measures.




Table 2. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Matrix Considered Alternative: Increase the Size of Drain Lines Running North-South between Morris Place and the ICRR Ditch


Geology and Soils

Negligible The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA: - Subtitle I of Title XV, Section 1539-1549) was enacted in 1981 and is intended to minimize the impact federal actions may have on the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. It assures that, to the extent possible, federal programs and policies are administered to be compatible with state and local farmland protection policies and programs. Projects are subject to FPPA requirements if they may irreversibly convert farmland (directly or indirectly) to nonagricultural use and are completed by a federal agency or with assistance from a federal agency. Per review of the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the soils located on the proposed project area are predominantly composed of Cancienne silt loam [Co] and Cancienne silty clay loam [Cm], which are classified as prime farmland soils. However, the project area is densely developed and considered an urban area. These soils are not considered Prime and Unique Farmland and therefore, exempt from review under the FPPA. Potential for short-term localized increase in soil erosion during construction.

A NRCS Web Soil Survey was accessed on 01/24/2017 at: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/ confirmed soils on the site are within an urban area and exempt.

Implement construction BMPs; install silt fences/straw bales to reduce sedimentation. Area soils would be covered and/or wetted during construction. If fill is stored on site as part of unit installation or removal, the contractor would be required to appropriately cover it.

Hydrology and Floodplains (E.O. 11988)

Minor E.O. 11988 (Floodplain Management) requires Federal agencies to avoid direct or indirect support or development within the 100-year floodplain whenever there is a practicable alternative. FEMA’s regulations for complying with E.O. 11988 are found at 44 CFR Part 9. Jefferson Parish enrolled in the NFIP on 10/01/1970. Per preliminary FIRM Panel Number 22051C0185F, dated 02/15/2016, project is located in Zone AE (EL-2 to EL 3), areas within the 100-year flood, BFE determined and Shaded Zone X, areas inundated by 0.2% annual chance flooding and protected by levees from 100-year flood. Per Jefferson Parish ABFE Maps LA-CC28 and LA-DD28, dated 06/05/2006, project is located in Zone AE (ABFE of EL 4.5 or 3’ above HEAG) and Shaded X Zone (ABFE of 3’ above HEAG). See Section 4.2 Hydrology and Floodplains, and 8-step process in Appendix E.

Jefferson Parish preliminary FIRM panel 22051C0185F dated 02/15/2016 and ABFE Maps LA-CC28 and LA-DD28, dated 06/05/2006.

The Applicant is required to coordinate with the local floodplain administrator regarding floodplain permit(s) prior to the start of any activities. New construction must be compliant with current codes and standards. As per 44 CFR 9.11(d) mitigation or minimization standards must be applied, where possible. Per 44 CFR 9.11(d)(6), no project should be built to a floodplain management standard that is less protective than what the community has adopted in local ordinances through their participation in the NFIP. All coordination pertaining to these activities and Applicant compliance with any conditions should be documented and copies forwarded to the state and FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project files.

Wetlands (E.O. 11990)

Negligible E.O. 11990, Protection of Wetlands, directs Federal Agencies to minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands and to preserve and enhance the values of wetlands for federally funded projects. FEMA regulations for complying with E.O. 11990 are found at 44 CFR Part 9, Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands. USFWS-NWI map queried on 01/24/2017 at https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html shows mapped wetlands are not present in the alternative project area.

Coordination with the USACE and EPA would be required by the FEMA. The applicant would need to submit a joint permit application to both LDNR and USACE.






Surface Water and Water Quality

Negligible USACE regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S., including wetlands, pursuant to Parts 401 and 404 of the CWA. Section 402 of the CWA, entitled NPDES, authorizes and sets forth standards for state administered permitting programs regulating the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters within the state’s jurisdiction. The USACE also regulates the building of structures in waters of the U.S. pursuant to Parts 9 and 10 of the RHA. Although there is potential for short-term localized increase in sedimentation during construction, the project as proposed would not have significant long term impacts to water quality.

Coordination with the USACE, LDEQ, and EPA would be required by the FEMA. The applicant would need to submit a joint permit application to both LDNR and USACE.

Take any necessary steps to obtain and/or update all necessary approvals and environmental permits regarding this proposed project.

Groundwater Negligible The SDWA was originally passed by Congress in 1974 to protect public health by regulating the nation's public drinking water supply. The SSA Protection Program is authorized by Section 1424(e) of the SDWA. The EPA defines a sole or principal source aquifer as one which supplies at least 50% of the drinking water consumed in the area overlying the aquifer. EPA guidelines also stipulate these areas can have no alternative drinking water consumed in the area overlying the aquifer. EPA guidelines also stipulate that these areas can have no alternative drinking water source(s) which could physically, legally, and economically supply all those who depend upon the aquifer for drinking water The alternative project as proposed would not be expected to affect any groundwater.

Coordination with the LDEQ and EPA would be required by the FEMA.

All precautions should be observed to protect the groundwater of the region.

Wild and Scenic River

Negligible The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Act), (P. L. 90-543 as amended: 16 U.S.C. 1271-1287) established a method for providing federal protection for certain free-flowing rivers, preserving them and their immediate environments for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. There are no Wild and Scenic Rivers in the project vicinity.

National Wild and Scenic Rivers https://www.rivers.gov/louisiana.php queried on 01/24/2017.

Coastal Resources

Minor The CZMA encourages the management of coastal zone areas and provides grants to be used in maintaining coastal zone areas. It is intended to ensure that federal activities are consistent with state programs for the protection and, where, possible, enhancement of the nation’s coastal zones. The project site is located within the Louisiana Coastal Zone and may require a CUP. See Section 4.3 Coastal Resources. The USFWS regulates federal funding in CBRS units under the CBRA. This Act protects undeveloped coastal barriers and related areas (i.e., OPAs) by prohibiting or limiting direct or indirect Federal funding of projects that support development in these areas. The project is not located within the CBRS.

Coordination with the LDNR by the FEMA would be required. The applicant would need to submit a joint permit application to both LDNR and USACE.

The applicant is responsible for coordinating with and obtaining any required permit(s) from the LDNR Coastal Management Division (CMD) prior to initiating work. Projects may be coordinated by contacting LDNR at 1-800-267-4019. All coordination activities pertaining to these activities should be documented and copies forwarded to GOHSEP and FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project files.

https://www.rivers.gov/louisiana.php



Air Quality Negligible The CAA requires the State of Louisiana to adopt ambient air quality standards to protect the public from potentially harmful amounts of pollutants. LDEQ has designated areas meeting the state’s ambient air quality standards by their monitoring and modeling program efforts. During construction, there is potential for short-term localized increase in vehicle emissions and dust particles. Currently, Jefferson Parish is classified as attainment with the National Ambient Air Quality Standard and has no general conformity determination obligations. No long-term reduction in air quality is expected once construction activities cease.

Coordination with the LDEQ would be required by the FEMA.

Area soils must be covered and/or wetted during construction to minimize dust.

Vegetation and Wildlife

Negligible The FWCA provides the basic authority for the USFWS involvement in evaluating impacts to fish and wildlife from proposed water resource development projects. It requires that fish and wildlife resources receive equal consideration to other project features. It also requires Federal agencies that construct, license or permit water resource development projects to first consult with the Service (and the NMFS in some instances) and State fish and wildlife agency regarding the impacts on fish and wildlife resources and measures to mitigate these impacts. The site is heavily pre-disturbed, in a developed urban area. No impacts to vegetation and wildlife are anticipated.

Coordination with the LDEQ would be required by the FEMA.

Extreme care must be taken during the construction process through the appropriate use and maintenance of BMPs. If at any time Heritage tracked species are encountered within the project area, please contact the LNHP Data Manager at 225-765-2643.

Threatened and Endangered Species (ESA Section 7)

Negligible The ESA of 1973 prohibits the taking of listed, threatened, and endangered species unless specifically authorized by permit from the USFWS or the NMFS. No impacts to rare, threatened, or endangered species or critical habitats are anticipated for the project. No state or federal parks, wildlife refuges, scenic streams, or wildlife management areas are known at the specified site within Louisiana’s boundaries.

Coordination with the USFWS would be required by the FEMA.

Cultural Resources (National Historic Preservation Act Section 106)

Negligible The consideration of impacts to historic and cultural resources is mandated under Section 101(b) 4 of the NEPA as implemented by 40 CFR Part 1501-1508. Section 106 of the NHPA requires Federal Agencies to take into account their effects on historic properties (i.e. historic and cultural resources, including American Indian Cultural Sites) and allow the ACHP an opportunity to comment. A review of this alternative indicates the expansion of the Archaeological APE through acquisition and proposed work items and therefore would likely require additional consultation though only has some limited potential to adversely affect historic properties, FEMA would follow its Section 106 review procedures if this proposed action is submitted to FEMA for funding consideration. Any additional conditions or requirements would be documented at that time.

Coordination with the SHPO would be required by the FEMA.



Environmental Justice (E.O. 12898) Socioeconomics

Negligible E.O. 12898, entitled “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” was signed on 02/11/1994. The E.O. directs federal agencies to make achieving environmental justice part of their missions by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and/or adverse human health, environmental, economic, and social effects of its programs, policies and activities on minority or low-income populations. According to the 2010 U.S. Census Demographic Profile of the City of Jefferson, LA; the total population is 31,594 with 17.3% Black/African American, 79.5% White, 1.7% Hispanic/Latino and 0.2% Asian. The median household income is $39,063 and 21.1% of the population is below poverty level. Per NEPAssist database search of the project area the total population is 5,732 with 35.1% Black/African American, 59.4% White, 8.7% Hispanic/Latino and 0.5% Asian. The low income (<$15,000) percent of the population in the project area is 44%. The project would reduce flooding in the area, thus providing a benefit to all populations in the area.

U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, Data for Jefferson, in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana accessed 01/24/2017. EPA NEPAssist Tool (http://nepassisttool.epa.gov/nepassist/entry.aspx.) accessed 06/01/2017.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

Negligible The objectives of RCRA are to protect human health and the environment from the potential hazards of waste disposal, to conserve energy and natural resources, to reduce the amount of waste generated, and to ensure that wastes are managed in an environmentally sound manner. RCRA regulates the management of solid waste (e.g., garbage), hazardous waste, and underground storage tanks holding petroleum products or certain chemicals. Project would involve excavation of soil and debris would be disposed of at a permitted landfill.

Coordination with the LDEQ and EPA would be required by the FEMA.

Applicant must take any necessary steps to obtain and/or update all necessary approvals and environmental permits regarding this proposed project. Unusable equipment, debris and material shall be disposed of in an approved manner and location. The applicant shall handle, manage, and dispose of petroleum products, hazardous materials and/or toxic waste in accordance with all local, state and Federal agency requirements. All coordination pertaining to these activities should be documented and copies forwarded to the state and FEMA as part of the permanent project files. All debris would be disposed of at a permitted landfill.

Noise Negligible Noise is commonly defined as unwanted or unwelcome sound, and most commonly measured in dB on the A-weighted scale, which is the scale most similar to the range of sounds that the human ear can hear. Sound is federally regulated by the Noise Control Act of 1972, which charges the EPA with preparing guidelines for acceptable ambient noise levels. EPA guidelines, and those of many other federal agencies, state that outdoor sound levels in excess of 55 dB DNL are “normally unacceptable” for noise-sensitive land uses including residences, schools, or hospitals. During the construction period there would be a short-term increase in noise levels.

Code of Ordinances - Jefferson Parish in Chapter 20 - OFFENSES AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS/ARTICLE V.-OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC PEACE, Sec. 20-102. Found on https://www.municode.com/library/la/jefferson_parish/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICOOR_CH20OFMIPR_ARTVOFAGPUPE_S20-102NO accessed 01/24/2017.

Mitigation and abatement measures will be required to reduce the noise levels to a range that would be considered acceptable. The applicant must comply with the local noise ordinance. Jefferson Parish Ordinance for dB limits is as follows: Industrial at all times 75 dB Commercial 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m. 65 dB, and 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m. 60 dB Residential 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m. 60 dB, and 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m. 55 dB Multifamily dwelling 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m. 50 dB and 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m. 45 dB.

Public Safety and Access

Negligible Congress passed the OSHA to ensure worker and workplace safety. The goal was to make sure employers provide their workers a place of employment free from recognized hazards to safety and health, such as exposure to toxic chemicals, excessive noise levels, mechanical dangers, heat or cold stress, or unsanitary conditions. During construction heavy equipment would be located in a populated area. Impacts to public safety and security would be minimized with mitigation measures, including following OSHA regulations.

The contractor must place fencing around the work area perimeters to protect nearby residents from vehicular traffic. To minimize worker and public health and safety risks from project construction and closure, all construction and closure work must be done using qualified personnel trained in the proper use of construction equipment, including all appropriate safety precautions. Additionally, all activities must be conducted in a safe manner in accordance with the standards specified in OSHA regulations and the USACE safety manual. The contractor must post appropriate signage and fencing to minimize potential adverse public safety concerns.









Traffic and Transportation

Negligible Traffic volumes along thoroughfares within and around the project area would increase temporarily during work activities. Further impacts would be analyzed based on construction plans.

Appropriate signage and barriers should be in place prior to construction activities in order to alert pedestrians and motorists of project activities and traffic pattern changes. The contractor should implement traffic control measures, as necessary.

Hazardous Materials and Toxic Waste

Negligible The CERCLA, commonly known as Superfund, authorizes EPA to response to releases, or threatened releases, of hazardous substances that may endanger public health, welfare, or the environment, that might come from any source. Superfund also grants EPA authority to force parties responsible for environmental contamination to clean it up or to reimburse response costs incurred by EPA. The SARA of 1986 created the EPCRA. EPCRA regulations establish several types of reporting obligations for facilities that store or manage specified chemical, including chemicals used by the construction industry, such as solvents. The TSCA allows EPA to collect data on chemicals to evaluate, assess, mitigate, and controls risks which may be posed by their manufacture, processing, and use. TSCA regulates PCBs in electrical equipment, including PMTs which are present in and near the project corridor. The PCB status of PMTs in the corridor is not known. Per NEPAssist database search, no CERCLA, TSCA, radiation, toxic release, or Brownfields sites have been identified within 0.5 mile of the site. Twenty (20) hazardous waste (RCRA) facilities are located within 0.5 mile of the site.

Coordination with the LDEQ and EPA would be required by the FEMA. EPA NEPAssist Tool (http://nepassisttool.epa.gov/nepassist/entry.aspx.) accessed 03/20/2017.

If hazardous materials are unexpectedly encountered in the project area during the construction operations, appropriate measures for the proper assessment, remediation, management and disposal of the contamination would be initiated in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations. The contractor would be required to take appropriate measures to prevent, minimize, and control the spill of hazardous materials in the construction area.




4.2 Hydrology and Floodplains (Executive Order 11988)

Executive Order (E.O.) 11988 (Floodplain Management) requires federal agencies to avoid or minimize development in the floodplain except when there are no practicable alternatives. A floodplain is defined as the lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters, including at a minimum that area subject to a 1% or greater chance of flooding in any given year. FEMA complies with E.O. 11988 through 44 CFR Part 9, Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands. FEMA uses FIRMs created by the NFIP, as the best available flood data.

Jefferson Parish enrolled in the NFIP on 10/01/1971. According to the FEMA preliminary FIRM Panel 22051C0185F, dated 02/15/2016, the project area lies within a special flood hazard area, Zone AE (EL -2 to EL 3), BFE determined, and within Shaded Zone X. Shaded Zone X is described as a moderate risk area within the 0.2% annual chance floodplain, areas of 1% annual chance flooding where average depths are less than 1’, areas of 1% annual chance flooding where the contributing drainage area is less than one (1) square mile, and areas protected from the 1% annual chance flood by a levee. Per Jefferson Parish ABFE Maps LA-CC28 and LA-DD28, dated 06/05/2006, project is located in Zone AE (ABFE of EL 4.5 or 3’ above HEAG) and Shaded X Zone (ABFE of 3’ above HEAG). No BFEs or base flood depths are shown within these zones. Even though portions of the project area are not in the flood zone, they are still subjected to local flooding.

The natural ground elevation near the Mississippi River levee is approximately 10’ above mean sea level and its surface elevation slopes to the low land at the base of the railroads. The Clearview Parkway/Earhart Expressway interchange area lies with a sump, and is 2’ to 3’ lower than the adjacent areas lying along the boundaries of the drainage area. This topography creates a bowl-like effect with the Interchange being at the bottom of the bowl. Increased development has resulted in sizeable paved and impervious areas exacerbating flooding problems.

The existing subsurface drainage system, as well as the open ditch system, is not adequate to handle the flow of water out of the basin. The Applicant’s consultant, Digital Engineering, Inc., studied the H&H of the existing and various proposed conditions. The hydrology and hydraulic calculations for the project were taken from the Assessment of the Manson Ditch Drainage System Hydraulic Analysis dated June 2015 (Appendix C). Per the H&H, extensive ponding in the Manson Ditch Drainage Basin, south of the CNRR/NOPBRR rail embankment, has been observed during storm events. This ponding occurred along all the east/west streets from Central Avenue into the Jefferson Park Subdivision. The majority of the flooding occurs between the rail embankment and Morris Place. There have been reports of the water flowing out of the Manson Ditch and flowing east along Morris Place, which is a result of the hydraulic gradient being above the roadway/ground surface. A total of 57 residences have filed flood insurance claims in the area between the CNRR/NOPBRR rail embankment and Jefferson Highway (Jefferson Park Subdivision). Furthermore, during heavy rainfall events flooding also occurs in the Manson Ditch basin, along Cleary Avenue north of Airline Drive, in the area of Cypress Street.

Per the H&H, water surface in Canal No. 5 of (or within) the Manson Ditch system was held constant at a -3.7’ (10-year design storm level) during simulations. In the Manson Ditch


system, between Canal No. 5 and Airline Drive, most of the intersecting streets are at approximately the same elevation as Cleary Avenue. The elevation of Roman Street and Cypress Street fall away from Cleary Avenue, towards the east, by up to 1’. With the canal water surface “fixed” at -3.7’ flooding is indicated around Cypress Street. These results indicated that the hydraulic gradient to the south of the railroad embankment is fairly independent of the water level in Canal No. 5.

Two (2) areas east of the Manson Ditch outfall directly into the ICRR Ditch and for modeling purposes these areas were tied directly to the Manson/ICRR node. For comparison purposes the stormwater management models (SWMM) were run for the 10-, 25-, 50-, and 100-year storm events for existing and improved conditions. Select node locations are shown on Figure 8. Table 3 compares pre and post conditions at limited nodes within the project area. The results indicated that the water surface in the area south of the rail embankment is directly related to the hydraulic gradient in both the Lower Kraak and Manson Ditches. Other results indicated that extensive ponding occurred between the CNRR/NOPBRR rail embankment and Ellen Street. This excess runoff flows to the east into the Jefferson Park Subdivision. The profile of both the natural ground and drain line invert of the Lower Kraak Ditch are both higher than those of the Manson Ditch system, south of the tracks. The runoff that cannot flow north along the Lower Kraak Ditch in turn drains into the Camellia and Manson Ditch drainage basins.

Figure 8. Manson Ditch Drainage Basin south of rail embankment in Jefferson, LA, highlighting street flooding, limited drainage nodes, and various elevations.


To comply with E.O. 11988, Floodplain Management, FEMA is required to follow the procedure outlined in 44 CFR Part 9 to assure that alternatives to the preferred action have been considered. This process, also known as the “8-Step Planning Process," has been applied to this mitigation project and is described in Appendix E. This action must be coordinated with the local floodplain manager as well as comply with local floodplain ordinances.

No Action Alternative: The No Action Alternative would not improve drainage or reduce flooding within the project area, nor would it decrease the risk of losses due to flooding of the properties in the vicinity. Additionally, access to the area would be disrupted from street flooding. The community would continue to experience flooding in the project area by an average of 3.3’ (10-year storm event) (Table 3). This could result in damage to property and hazardous conditions for not only the residents of Jefferson, but also businesses and emergency responders who utilize the roadways and live in the area.

Preferred Alternative: Per the H&H, the objective of the project is to determine the adequacy of the subsurface drainage system for a 10-year design storm. The H&H discusses sizes and estimates the hydraulic impact of improving the site. Based on the H&H results, the proposed drainage system improvements indicate reductions in flooding in the 10-, 25-, 50- and 100-year flood elevations in the project area, thereby removing the frequent flooding events affecting over 580 structures (HMGP Application, July 2014) (Table 3, Figure 9). The hydraulic modeling results indicate that no significant street flooding would be expected during the design storm (10-year storm event) (Table 3). The hydraulic modeling results indicate an average WSE of 2.2’ in the project area under the improved conditions which is an average reduction in flooding of 1.1’ during the 10-year design storm, resulting in a very beneficial change for Jefferson Park Subdivision.

To reduce flows in the Hoey’s Canal, the Parish presently pumps 20 cfs from the Hoey’s Canal into this detention pond. Installing the 200 cfs pump station in the ICRR Ditch and the three (3) pipe outfall into Hoey’s Canal would lower the WSE in the ICRR Ditch and would not increase the capacity of the existing culvert. By lowering the water surface in the ICRR Ditch the hydraulic gradient out of the Jefferson Park Subdivision would be lowered hence reducing the flooding in this area.

Additionally, the proposed flap gates at the Lower Kraak and Manson Ditches would isolate the Jefferson Park Subdivision from the north during a heavy rain event. These outfalls at the ICRR Ditch would be connected by installing a new drain line to direct flow from these ditches to the Upper Kraak Pump Station. The installation of the flap gates would allow the Lower Kraak and Manson Ditches to operate in their current configuration under normal conditions.

No significant impact would occur to floodplains under the Preferred Action; however, indirect short-term impacts to the surrounding area could occur during construction. Construction BMPs would be included into the daily construction activities.

The applicant is required to coordinate with the local floodplain administrator regarding floodplain permit(s) prior to the start of any activities. New construction must be compliant with current codes and standards.


Table 3. Water surface elevations at various points along Manson Ditch during ideal pump simulations


As per 44 CFR 9.11 (d) mitigation or minimization standards must be applied, where possible. Per 44 CFR 9.11(d)(6), no project should be built to a floodplain management standard that is less protective than what the community has adopted in local ordinances through their participation in the NFIP.

All coordination pertaining to these activities and Applicant compliance with any conditions should be documented and copies forwarded to the state and FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project files.

Figure 9. Jefferson Parish hazard mitigation Jefferson Park Subdivision/Manson Ditch project benefit area map.


Considered Alternative: Increase the Size of Drain Lines Running North-South between Morris Place and the ICRR Ditch The considered alternative involves increasing the size of the transmission drain lines that run north-south in the Jefferson Park Subdivision area between Morris Place and the ICRR Ditch to convey the precipitation accumulation through backyard drainage servitudes along the rear of adjacent residential properties.

Based on the H&H studies, the hydraulic gradient begins to exceed the natural ground elevation in the area of Morris Place. Morris Place is approximately half way between the CNRR/NOPBRR rail embankment and Jefferson Highway. The ground slopes away from Jefferson Highway at an elevation of 6± towards Morris Place at an elevation of 1.8± in a distance of approximately 1350’. The flooding occurs from Morris Place to the rail embankment because the ground stays relatively flat.

Per the H&H the maximum tributary flow from the areas to the west and east is 77 cfs and the maximum flow in the Manson Ditch coming to Morris Place is 96 cfs for a combined total of 173 cfs. Under this scenario the discharge lines from the pump station would have to be installed beneath the existing Manson Ditch drainage. This alternative requires property acquisitions that would be determined at a later date. Additionally, if this alternative were to become the preferred alternative then a supplemental H&H would be required and resubmitted for review and approval.

The applicant is required to coordinate with the local floodplain administrator regarding floodplain permit(s) prior to the start of any activities. New construction must be compliant with current codes and standards.

As per 44 CFR 9.11 (d) mitigation or minimization standards must be applied, where possible. Per 44 CFR 9.11(d)(6), no project should be built to a floodplain management standard that is less protective than what the community has adopted in local ordinances through their participation in the NFIP.

All coordination pertaining to these activities and Applicant compliance with any conditions should be documented and copies forwarded to the state and FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project files.

4.3 Surface Water and Water Quality

USACE regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S., including wetlands, pursuant to §§ 401 and 404 of the CWA. Section 402 of the CWA, entitled NPDES, authorizes and sets forth standards for state administered permitting programs regulating the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters within the state’s jurisdiction. The USACE also regulates the building of structures in waters of the U.S. pursuant to §§ 9 and 10 of the RHA.

No Action Alternative: Implementation of the no action alternative would not impact surface water. Water quality would continue to experience contamination from flood events. This would occur when businesses and homes were inundated and gasoline, oil, chemicals, cleaners, solvents, etc. were spilled.


Preferred Alternative: Although there is potential for short-term localized increase in sedimentation during construction, the project as proposed would not have significant long term impacts to water quality. A SOV was prepared and sent out to the USACE and LDEQ by the FEMA on 11/23/2016. The applicant submitted a joint permit application to USACE on 04/21/2017. In response to the joint permit application submitted by the applicant the USACE authorized the use of NWP 18 for Minor Discharges. A copy of the permit is found in Appendix D Agency Correspondence.

The applicant shall comply with all conditions of the required permit. All coordination pertaining to these activities and applicant compliance with any conditions should be documented and copies forwarded to the state and FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project file. See Section 6.0 Conditions and Mitigation Measures.

LDEQ responded in an email dated 12/14/2016 stating the agency had no objections based on the information provided in the SOV submittal.

The applicant must comply with all NWP 18 conditions listed in the USACE Permit (MVN 2017-00028-EA), NWP 18, issued on 08/17/2017, and will expire on 03/18/2022.

The applicant must provide a signed certification stating that the authorized work was conducted in accordance with the permit, including any special conditions, and that mitigation (if required) was completed in accordance with the permit.

If the project results in a discharge to waters of the state, submittal of a LPDES application may be necessary.

All precautions should be observed to protect the groundwater of the region.

BMPs should be implemented to ensure groundwater is protected.

If the project results in a discharge of wastewater to an existing wastewater treatment system, that wastewater treatment system may need to modify its LPDES permit before accepting the additional wastewater.

All precautions should be observed to control nonpoint source pollution from construction activities. LDEQ has stormwater general permits for construction areas equal to or greater than one (1) acre. The Applicant must contact the LDEQ Water Permits Division at (225) 219-9371 to determine if the proposed project requires a permit.

Water softeners generate wastewaters that may require special limitations depending on local water quality considerations. If water system improvements include water softeners, contact the LDEQ Water Permits to determine if special water quality based limitations will be necessary.

If any solid or hazardous wastes, or soils and/or groundwater contaminated with hazardous constituents are encountered during the project, notification to LDEQ’s SPOC at (225) 219-3640 is required. Additionally, precautions should be taken to protect workers from these hazardous constituents.


If the project will include a sanitary wastewater treatment facility, a Sewage Sludge and Biosolids Use or Disposal Permit is required. An application or Notice of Intent will be required if the sludge management practice includes preparing biosolids for land application or preparing sewage sludge to be hauled to a landfill. Additional information may be obtained on the LDEQ website at http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/portal/tabid/2296/Default.aspx or by contacting the LDEQ Water Permits Division at (225) 219-9371.

Considered Alternative: Increase the Size of Drain Lines Running North-South between Morris Place and the ICRR Ditch The considered alternative would be to increase the size of the transmission drain lines that run north-south in the Jefferson Park Subdivision area between Morris Place and the ICRR Ditch. Impacts here would be similar to those found in the preferred alternative. During construction erosion control measures would be needed to prevent sedimentation, and BMPs would be needed to prevent spills or contaminants entering the waterways. The applicant would be required to submit a joint permit application to the USACE and coordinate with LDEQ for any required permits. The applicant would be required to comply with all conditions set forth by the regulatory agencies.

5.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

CEQ regulations state that the cumulative impact of a project represents the “impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time” (40 CFR § 1508.7).

In its comprehensive guidance on cumulative impacts analysis under NEPA, CEQ notes that “the range of actions that must be considered includes not only the project proposal, but all connected and similar actions that could contribute to cumulative effects” (Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the NEPA 2005). The term, “similar actions,” may be defined as “reasonably foreseeable or proposed agency actions [having] similarities that provide a basis for evaluating the environmental consequences together, such as common timing or geography” (40 CFR § 1508.25[a][3]).

Not all potential issues identified during cumulative effects scoping need be included in a DEA. Because some effects may be irrelevant or inconsequential to decisions about the preferred action and alternatives, the focus of the cumulative effects analysis should be narrowed to important issues of national, regional, or local significance. To assist agencies in this narrowing process, CEQ (2007) provides a list of several basic questions to be considered, including: (1) Is the preferred action one of several similar past, present, or future actions in the same geographic area; (2) Do other activities (governmental or private) in the region have environmental effects similar to those of the preferred action?; (3) Have any recent or ongoing NEPA analyses of similar or nearby actions identified important adverse or beneficial cumulative effect issues?; and (4) Has the impact been historically significant, such that the importance of the resource is defined by past loss, past gain, or investments to restore resources?



It is normally insufficient when conducting a cumulative effects analysis to merely analyze effects within the immediate area of the preferred action. Geographic boundaries should be expanded for cumulative effects analysis and conducted on the scale of human communities, landscapes, watersheds, or airsheds. Temporal frames should be extended to encompass additional effects on the resources, ecosystems, and human communities of concern. A useful concept in determining appropriate geographic boundaries for a cumulative effects analysis is the project impact zone, that is, the area (and resources within that area) that could be affected by the preferred action. The area appropriate for analysis of cumulative effects will, in most instances, be a larger geographic area occupied by resources outside of the project impact zone (CEQ 2007).

The proposed project site is centered at Latitude 29.9698, Longitude -90.1592 in zip code 70121. FEMA has determined that a one (1) mile radius constitutes an appropriate boundary for a cumulative impact analysis of the preferred action and the alternatives. The study area includes zip codes 70121 and 70001.

In Jefferson Parish, over 2,400 FEMA program-funded emergency protective measures, repair projects and hazard mitigation projects that have occurred, or are occurring to buildings, recreational and educational facilities, public utilities, and waterways from August 2005 through April 2017. FEMA-funded undertakings for the study area total 31 project sites, and were limited to Public Assistance, with an obligated amount of over $6.5 million for three (3) FEMA disasters. All of the project were emergency protective measures or repairs to public buildings and recreational facilities, and all were projected to be finished in 2016. No prior EAs were associated with FEMA-funded project sites in the study area. FEMA-funded actions are subjected to various levels of environmental review as a requirement for the receipt of federal funding. A Subgrantee’s failure to comply with any required environmental permitting or other condition is a grant violation, which can result in the loss of federal assistance, including funding.

Table 4. FEMA-funded project sites in study area by disaster and project type.

FEMA Program/Project Type Total DR-1603 DR-1786 DR-4080 Public Assistance Grants $6,526,236 $5,925,656 $33,388.04 $567,191 PA - B - Protective Measures 5 5 0 0 PA - E - Public Buildings 20 16 2 2 PA - G - Recreational or Other 6 1 2 3

Grand Total 31 22 4 5

Table 5. FEMA-funded project sites in study area by disaster and estimated project completion date.

FEMA Disaster Total 2006 2007 2009 2013 2014 2015 2016 Hurricane Katrina (DR-1603) 22 5 5 9 1 2 0 0 Hurricane Gustav (DR-1786) 4 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 Hurricane Isaac (DR-4080) 5 0 0 0 0 4 0 1

Grand Total 31 5 5 9 1 2 3 1


Figure 10. Map depicting FEMA-funded projects within the study area (FEMA 2017).

The Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LDOTD) plans to construct an interchange at Earhart Boulevard and Causeway Boulevard in the area of the existing detention pond. The majority of this interchange would be constructed as an above ground structure. The at grade portion would have a nominal effect on the total area of the detention pond. A revised alignment to one (1) of the discharge pipes and the 18” siphon/return pipe has been addressed in order to resolve a conflict with one (1) of the bridge foundations. See Site Plans in Appendix B.

Table 6 below lists and briefly describes known present, past, and reasonably foreseeable infrastructure and recovery improvement projects, including activities identified by FEMA that may have the potential for cumulative impacts when combined with the effects of the present preferred action. The table also identifies the potential for cumulative impacts when combined with the effects of the preferred action and the rationale for that assessment.


Table 6. Known Present, Past, and Reasonably Foreseeable Infrastructure and Recovery Improvement Projects.

Project Name / Status

Lead Agency Location Description Cumulative

Impacts Rationale Clearview/Airline Intersection

LDOTD Clearview Parkway and Airline Highway (US 61) from Central Avenue to west of Garden of Memories

Improve the intersection of Clearview Parkway and Airline Highway (US 61) to help alleviate congestion and facilitate transportation to various areas.

Less than significant

Expected impacts to resources would be significantly different from those expected to be affected by the preferred action and alternatives, and overall are expected to be beneficial. Furthermore, any adverse effects to similar resources would be minimal and temporary.

New Orleans Gateway Program

LADOTD, New Orleans Regional Planning Commission, and Association of American Railroads

Avondale through the City of New Orleans

A study is underway to identify various rail and roadway improvements that will reduce vehicle congestion, improve emergency evacuation, improve vehicle and pedestrian safety, and correct rail and roadway physical and operational deficiencies. Project implementation is expected to occur in the Fall 2017.



Earhart-Causeway Interchange Project

LADOTD, U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

Southbound Causeway to eastbound Earhart, Eastbound Earhart to northbound Causeway, Southbound Causeway to westbound Earhart, and Westbound Earhart to northbound Causeway, Jefferson Parish, LA

Provide a new interchange between the Earhart Expressway (LA 3139) and Causeway Boulevard (LA 3046) in Jefferson Parish, LA to assist in congestion relief for east-west traffic flow in the New Orleans Metro Area and to provide better connectivity and access for vehicular traffic in the metro area.



As identified in Tables 4, 5, 6, and Figure10, the cumulative effect of these present, past, and reasonably foreseeable future actions is not anticipated to result in a significant impact to any resource. Each of the projects either aims to restore or improve the function of pre-existing infrastructure within an urban setting or proposes redevelopment consistent with current zoning requirements, with minimal impacts to the natural and human environment.

6.0 CONDITIONS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Based upon the studies and consultations undertaken in this EA, several conditions and mitigation measures must be taken by the Applicant prior to and during project


implementation. The following conditions must be met as part of the implementation of the project. Failure to comply with these conditions may jeopardize federal funds.

• The Applicant is required to obtain and comply with all local, state and federal permits, approvals and requirements prior to initiating work on this project. All coordination pertaining to these activities and Applicant compliance with any conditions should be documented and copies forwarded to the state and FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project files.

• Zone of No Work: FEMA has informed the Applicant of the presence of a cemetery in close proximity to the project area bounded by Scott Street., Saia Lane; the ICRR canal, and Causeway Boulevard and has established a buffer zone and instructed that no work will be done within its boundaries.

• Louisiana Unmarked Human Burial Sites Preservation Act: If human bone or unmarked grave(s) are present within the project area, compliance with the Louisiana Unmarked Human Burial Sites Preservation Act (R.S. 8:671 et seq.) is required. The Applicant shall notify the law enforcement agency of the jurisdiction where the remains are located within 24 hours of the discovery. The Applicant shall also notify FEMA and the Louisiana Division of Archaeology at 225-342-8170 within 72 hours of the discovery.

• Inadvertent Discovery Clause: If during the course of work, archaeological artifacts (prehistoric or historic) are discovered, the Applicant shall stop work in the vicinity of the discovery and take all reasonable measures to avoid or minimize harm to the finds. The Applicant shall inform their, GOSHEP State Applicant Liaison and Hazard Mitigation Assistance contacts at FEMA, who will in turn contact FEMA HP staff. The Applicant will not proceed with work until FEMA HP completes consultation with the SHPO, and others as appropriate.

• The Applicant is required to coordinate with the local floodplain administrator regarding floodplain permit(s) prior to the start of any activities.

• As per 44 CFR 9.11 (d), mitigation or minimization standards must be applied, where possible. Per 44 CFR 9.11(d)(6), no project should be built to a floodplain management standard that is less protective than what the community has adopted in local ordinances through their participation in the NFIP.

• New construction must be compliant with current codes and standards. All coordination pertaining to these activities and Applicant compliance with any conditions should be documented and copies forwarded to the state and FEMA for inclusion in the permanent project files.

• Implement construction BMPs; install silt fences/straw bales to reduce sedimentation. Area soils would be covered and/or wetted during construction. If fill is stored on site as part of unit installation or removal, the contractor would be required to appropriately cover it.


• The applicant must comply with all NWP 18 conditions listed in the USACE General Permit (MVN-2017-00028-ES) issued on 08/17/2017, and will expire on 03/18/2022. The applicant must provide a signed certification stating that the authorized work was conducted in accordance with the permit, including any special conditions, and that mitigation (if required) was completed in accordance with the permit.

• All precautions should be observed to protect the groundwater of the region. BMPs should be implemented to ensure groundwater is protected.

• If the project will include a sanitary wastewater treatment facility, a Sewage Sludge and Biosolids Use or Disposal Permit is required. An application or Notice of Intent will be required if the sludge management practice includes preparing biosolids for land application or preparing sewage sludge to be hauled to a landfill. Additional information may be obtained on the LDEQ website at http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/portal/tabid/2296/Default.aspx or by contacting the LDEQ Water Permits Division at (225) 219-9371.

• All precautions should be observed to control nonpoint source pollution from construction activities.

• Water softeners generate wastewaters that may require special limitations depending on local water quality considerations. If water system improvements include water softeners, contact LDEQ Water Permits to determine if special water quality based limitations will be necessary.

• If the project results in a discharge to waters of the state, submittal of a LPDES application may be necessary.

• If the project results in a discharge of wastewater to an existing wastewater treatment system, that wastewater treatment system may need to modify its LPDES permit before accepting the additional wastewater.

• LDEQ has storm water general permits for construction areas equal to or greater than one (1) acre. The Applicant must contact the LDEQ Water Permit Division be contacted at (225) 219-9371 to determine whether the proposed improvements require one of these permits.

• Any changes or modifications to the proposed project would require a revised wetland jurisdictional determination. Off-site locations of activities such as borrow, disposals, haul-and detour-roads and work mobilization site developments may be subject to the Department of the Army regulatory requirements and may have an impact to a Department of Army project.

• All precautions should be observed to protect the groundwater of the region.

• If any solid or hazardous wastes, or soils and/or groundwater contaminated with hazardous constituents are encountered during the project, notification to LDEQ’s



SPOC at (225) 219-3640 is required. Additionally, precautions should be taken to protect workers from these hazardous constituents.

• To ensure continued compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA), reinitiate consultation when: 1) new information reveals that the action may affect listed species or designated critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this consultation, 2) the action is modified in a manner that causes effects to listed species or designated critical habitat not considered in the consultation, or 3) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that the action may affect.

• If the proposed project has not been initiated within one (1) year from the date of United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) review (9/25/2017), follow-up coordination with FEMA should be accomplished prior to making expenditures because threatened and endangered species information is updated annually. If the scope or location of the proposed project is changed, coordination should occur as soon as changes are made and FEMA should be notified for further coordination with the USFWS.

• Vehicle operation times would be kept to a minimum. Area soils must be covered and/or wetted during construction to minimize dust.

• If at any time Heritage tracked species are encountered within the project area, please contact the LNHP Data Manager at 225-765-2643.

• Applicant must take any necessary steps to obtain and/or update all necessary approvals and environmental permits regarding this proposed project.

• Unusable equipment, debris and material shall be disposed of in an approved manner and location. The applicant shall handle, manage, and dispose of petroleum products, hazardous materials and/or toxic waste in accordance with all local, state and Federal agency requirements. All coordination pertaining to these activities should be documented and copies forwarded to the state and FEMA as part of the permanent project files.

• All debris would be disposed of at a permitted landfill.

• Appropriate signage and barriers should be in place prior to construction activities in order to alert pedestrians and motorists of project activities and traffic pattern changes.

• The contractor must place fencing around the work area perimeters to protect nearby residents from vehicular traffic.

• To minimize worker and public health and safety risks from project construction and closure, all construction and closure work must be done using qualified personnel trained in the proper use of construction equipment, including all appropriate safety precautions. Additionally, all activities must be conducted in a safe manner in accordance with the standards specified in OSHA regulations and the USACE safety manual.


• The contractor must post appropriate signage and fencing to minimize potential adverse public safety concerns.

• The contractor should implement traffic control measures, as necessary.

• Mitigation and abatement measures will be required to reduce the noise levels to a range that would be considered acceptable. The applicant must comply with the local ordinance. Jefferson Parish Ordinance for dB limits is as follows: Commercial 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m. 65 dB, and 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m. 60 dB Residential 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m. 60 dB, and 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m. 55 dB Multifamily dwelling 7:00 a.m. to 9:59 p.m. 50 dB and 10:00 p.m. to 6:59 a.m. 45 dB.

• The construction contractor shall comply with CERCLA hazardous substance release reporting requirement, if an applicable release occurs.

• Notify the NRC at 800-424-8802 if an oil discharge to water occurs.

• Any renovation or remodeling must comply with LAC 33:III.Chapter 28, Lead-Based Paint Activities; LAC 33:III.Chapter 27, Asbestos-Containing Materials in Schools and State Buildings (includes all training and accreditation); and LAC 33:III.5151, Emission Standard for Asbestos for any renovations or demolitions.

Failure to comply with these conditions may make part or all of these projects ineligible for FEMA funding.

7.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

A public notice is published in The Advocate-New Orleans edition for five (5) days, Thursday and Friday, September 28 and 29, 2017, and Monday, October 2, through Wednesday, October 4, 2017, and the paper of record, the Times-Picayune for three (3) days, Wednesday, October 4, 2017, Friday, October 6, 2017, and Sunday, October 8, 2017, to alert the public that the Draft EA and FONSI are available for review at the Jefferson Parish Library (Old Metairie Branch) at 2350 Metairie Road, Metairie, LA 70001. The Draft EA is also published on FEMA’s website at http://www.fema.gov/resource-document-library. There will be a thirty (30) day comment period, beginning on September 28, 2017 and concluding on October 27, 2017 at 4 p.m. A copy of the Public Notice is attached in Appendix E. Once the public comment period for the Draft EA is completed, comments will be addressed and incorporated into the final EA.

8.0 AGENCY COORDINATION • Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) • Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (LDNR) • Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF) • Louisiana State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) • U.S. Department of Agriculture - Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)

http://www.fema.gov/resource-document-library


• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

9.0 CONCLUSION

Although the considered alternative would result in a decrease in flooding within the study area, the implementation of the considered alternative was not feasible due to the limited servitude width. Hence, there would not be enough room for the construction of any possible improvements. The involved route would traverse through private property yielding possible effects of the installation of the drain pipes on foundations and property. This alternative would require extensive surface development, replacement and addition of pipes, and numerous rear lot servitudes when compared to the preferred alternative. Additionally, there is not a direct route for the installation of the discharge pipes which would yield numerous acquisitions in a densely populated area. Due to the additional complexity of construction, the logistics to acquire properties and reconfigure the installation, and the cost versus benefit of the project when compared to the preferred alternative this alternative was dismissed.

Construction of the Preferred Action Alternative was analyzed based on the studies, consultations, and reviews undertaken as reported in this EA. The findings of this EA conclude that the Preferred Action Alternative would result in no significant adverse impacts to geology and soils, hydrology and floodplains, wetlands, surface water and water quality, groundwater, biological resources, coastal resources, air quality, threatened and endangered species, cultural resources, environmental justice and socioeconomic resources, resource conservation and recovery, noise, traffic and transportation, hazardous materials and toxic waste, climate change, or public health and safety under the Preferred Action Alternative. Furthermore, this EA concludes that the Preferred Action Alternative would not result in cumulative impacts on the affected environment.

During project construction, short-term impacts to soils, surface water, transportation, air quality, and noise are anticipated and conditions have been incorporated to mitigate and minimize the effects. Project short-term adverse impacts would be mitigated using BMPs, such as silt fences, proper vehicle and equipment maintenance, and appropriate signage. No long-term adverse impacts are anticipated from the proposed drainage project. Therefore, FEMA presently finds the preferred action meets the requirements for a FONSI under the NEPA and the preparation of an EIS will not be required (See Appendix E). If new information is received that indicates there may be significant adverse effects, FEMA would then revise the findings and issue a second public notice, for additional comments. However, if there are no changes, this Draft EA will become the Final EA.

Based upon the studies and consultations undertaken in this EA, and given the precautionary and mitigating measures, there does not appear to be any significant environmental impacts associated with the Jefferson Park Subdivision/Manson Ditch Drainage Improvements Project.


10.0 LIST OF PREPARERS Jerame J. Cramer, Environmental Liaison Officer Federal Emergency Management Agency, Louisiana Recovery Office, Region VI

Tiffany Spann-Winfield, Deputy Environmental Liaison Officer Federal Emergency Management Agency, Louisiana Recovery Office, Region VI

Jamie Schexnayder, Environmental Protection Specialist Federal Emergency Management Agency, Louisiana Recovery Office, Region VI

Jeremiah Kaplan, Archaeologist Federal Emergency Management Agency, Louisiana Recovery Office, Region VI

Alice-Anne Krishnan, Environmental/Historic Preservation Specialist Federal Emergency Management Agency, Louisiana Recovery Office, Region VI

Melanie Pitts, Supervisory Environmental Protection Specialist Federal Emergency Management Agency, Louisiana Recovery Office, Region VI

11.0 REFERENCES

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 2010. Memorandum for heads of Federal Departments and Agencies. Subject: Draft NEPA guidance on consideration of the effects of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. Authored by: Nancy H. Sutley, Chair, Council on Environmental Quality. Issued 02/18/2010. [Online]:http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/Consideration_of_Effects_of_GHG_Draft_NEPA_Guidance_FINAL_02182010.pdf accessed 1/30/2017.

Council on Environmental Quality. https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq accessed 1/30/2017.

Council on Environmental Quality. 40 CFR Part 1508. [Online]: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=79277a7f30e9ca83604735144390cd06&mc=true&node=pt40.33.1508&rgn=div5 accessed 1/30/2017.

Environmental Protection Agency. Enviromapper. [Online]: https://www.epa.gov/enviro/myenviromapper accessed 1/30/2017.

Environmental Protection Agency. Envirofacts. [Online]: http://www.epa.gov/enviro/ accessed 1/27/2017.

Environmental Protection Agency. NEPAssist tool. [Online]: http://nepassisttool.epa.gov/nepassist/entry.aspx accessed on 06/01/2017.

Environmental Protection Agency. 2015. Nonattainment Status for each Parish by year. [Online]: http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/ accessed 1/30/2017.

http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/Consideration_of_Effects_of_GHG_Draft_NEPA_Guidance_FI

http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/Consideration_of_Effects_of_GHG_Draft_NEPA_Guidance_FI

https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq%20accessed%201/30/2017

https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq%20accessed%201/30/2017

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=79277a7f30e9ca83604735144390cd06&mc=true&node=pt40.33.1508&rgn=div5




http://www.epa.gov/enviro/

http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/


Hazard Mitigation Program Grant Application, Jefferson Parish Jefferson Park Subdivision/Manson Ditch Drainage Improvements Application. July 2014. Michelle Gonzales, Director of Floodplain Management & Hazard Mitigation.

Hydraulic Analysis. Assessment of the Manson Ditch Drainage System, Council District 2 and 5, Jefferson Parish. Project No. 2012-033-DR. Digital Engineering and Imaging, Inc. Project No. 514-1125. March 2014, Revised with Lower Kraak Ditch, Revised May 2015 and Updated June 2015.

Jefferson Parish Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. March 2015. [Online]: http://www.jeffparish.net/index.aspx?page=3821 accessed 01/27/2017.

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. Air quality data. [Online]: http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/portal/programs/air.aspx accessed 1/30/2017.

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. Electronic Document Management System. [Online]:http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/portal/tabid/2604/Default.aspx accessed 1/30/2017.

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. [Online]: http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/ accessed 1/30/2017.

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. Louisiana State Brownfields List. [Online]: http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/portal/tabid/2620/Default.aspx accessed 1/30/2017.

Louisiana State University Agricultural Center Floodmaps. [Online]: http://maps.lsuagcenter.com/floodmaps/?FIPS=22109 accessed 1/30/2017 and 3/30/2017.

Municode Library. Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. Chapter 20-Offenses and Miscellaneous Provisions/Article V. – Offense against Public Peace, Sec. 20-102 [Online]: https://www.municode.com/library/la/jefferson_parish/codes/code_of_ordinances accessed 01/24/2017.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Coastal Zone Management Act. [Online]: http://coast.noaa.gov/czm/act/ accessed 1/30/2017.

National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map [Online] Available: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html accessed on 1/30/2017.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2013 American Community Survey Data for Jefferson, Louisiana. [Online]: http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml accessed 1/30/2017.

U. S. Department of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service. 1983. Soil Survey of Jefferson Parish, Louisiana.

http://www.jeffparish.net/index.aspx?page=3821

http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/portal/programs/air.aspx


http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/


http://maps.lsuagcenter.com/floodmaps/?FIPS=22109

https://www.municode.com/library/la/jefferson_parish/codes/code_of_ordinances%20accessed%2001/24/2017

https://www.municode.com/library/la/jefferson_parish/codes/code_of_ordinances%20accessed%2001/24/2017

http://coast.noaa.gov/czm/act/


http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml


U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Coastal Barrier Resources Act. [Online]: http://www.fws.gov/CBRA/Maps/Mapper.html accessed 1/30/2017.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Endangered species data. [Online]: USFWS Endangered Species homepage accessed 9/25/2017.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Louisiana Ecological Services. Endangered Species Act and Migratory Bird Treaty Act Project Review. [Online]: http://www.fws.gov/lafayette/pdc/default.aspx accessed 9/25/2017.

http://www.fws.gov/CBRA/Maps/Mapper.html

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/

http://www.fws.gov/lafayette/pdc/default.aspx

Documents

Draft Environmental Assessment Jefferson Parish Jefferson ......about 55 miles in a north -south direction from the southern shores of Lake Pontchartrain to the ... Jefferson, which