Environmental Assessment Plattsburgh International …flyplattsburgh.com/data/files/PBG_Hotel Final EA_Narrative.pdf2.4. SUMMARY ... EO Executive Order ... hotel, restaurant, and associated

Environmental Assessment Plattsburgh International Airport

This page intentionally left blank.

Plattsburgh International Airport Environmental Assessment

Table of Contents i

Table of Contents Chapter 1 – Introduction

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1. PROPOSED ACTION ........................................................................................................ 1-2 Chapter 2 – Purpose and Need 2. PURPOSE AND NEED............................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1. BACKGROUND................................................................................................................ 2-1

2.2. ROLE OF PBG IN THE REGIONAL ECONOMY .................................................................. 2-4

2.3. PURPOSE AND NEED ...................................................................................................... 2-5

2.4. SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 2-6 Chapter 3 – Alternatives

3. ALTERNATIVES ...................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1. BUILD ALTERNATIVE ...................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2. NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE ................................................................................................ 3-2

3.3. ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION .............................................................. 3-2

Chapter 4 – Affected Environment 4. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT.................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1. Ecological Communities ......................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1.1 State and Federal Listed Threatened and Endangered Species ...................... 4-1

4.2. COASTAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................... 4-3

4.3. SECTION 4(F) RESOURCES.............................................................................................. 4-3

4.4. FARMLANDS................................................................................................................... 4-3

4.5. HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................... 4-4

4.6. LAND USE....................................................................................................................... 4-4

4.6.1. Zoning ..................................................................................................................... 4-5

4.6.2. Industrial and Commercial Activities Characteristics ............................................. 4-5

4.6.3. Residential Areas, Schools, Places of Worship, Outdoor Areas .............................. 4-5

4.7. SOCIOECONOMICS, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, AND CHILDREN’S ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY RISKS ...................................................................................................... 4-6

4.8. WATER RESOURCES ....................................................................................................... 4-9

4.8.1. Wetlands ................................................................................................................ 4-9

4.8.2. Floodplains ............................................................................................................. 4-9

4.8.3. Surface Waters ....................................................................................................... 4-9

4.8.4. Groundwater ........................................................................................................ 4-11

4.8.5. National and State Forests, Wilderness Areas, and Wild and Scenic Rivers ......... 4-11 Chapter 5 – Environmental Consequences

5. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ..................................................................................... 5-1

5.1. RESOURCES NOT AFFECTED........................................................................................... 5-1

5.2. AIR QUALITY................................................................................................................... 5-1

5.2.1. Air Quality Construction Impacts............................................................................ 5-2


Table of Contents ii

5.3. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................... 5-6

5.4. CLIMATE......................................................................................................................... 5-7

5.5. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ............................................................................................... 5-7

5.5.1. Solid Waste............................................................................................................. 5-8

5.6. LAND USE....................................................................................................................... 5-9

5.7. NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENERGY SUPPLY............................................................... 5-10

5.8. NOISE ........................................................................................................................... 5-10

5.8.1. Noise Construction Impacts ................................................................................. 5-11

5.9. SOCIOECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, AND CHILDREN’S HEALTH AND SAFETY RISKS 5-11

5.9.1. Industry, Employment, and Income ..................................................................... 5-12

5.9.2. Community Tax Base ............................................................................................ 5-12

5.9.3. Environmental Justice .......................................................................................... 5-12

5.9.4. Children’s Health and Safety Risks ....................................................................... 5-13

5.9.5. Traffic ................................................................................................................... 5-13

5.9.6. Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 5-14

5.10. LIGHT EMISSIONS AND VISUAL EFFECTS .................................................................. 5-14

5.11. WATER RESOURCES.................................................................................................. 5-15

5.11.1. Surface Water ................................................................................................... 5-15

5.11.2. Groundwater .................................................................................................... 5-16

5.11.3. Water Quality Construction Impacts ................................................................ 5-17

5.12. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ............................................................................................ 5-17

5.13. MITIGATION ............................................................................................................. 5-18

5.14. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ............................................................................................ 5-18 Chapter 6 – List of Preparers

6. LIST OF PREPARERS............................................................................................................... 6-1

McFarland Johnson, Inc. ................................................................................................... 6-1


Table of Contents iii

List of Tables Table 4-1 : Demographics............................................................................................................. 4-6

Table 5-1 : Construction Emission Usage Summary ..................................................................... 5-3

Table 5-2 : Construction Emission Usage Summary ..................................................................... 5-4

Table 5-3 : Construction Emissions Totals .................................................................................... 5-5

Table 5-4 : Demographic Profile Surrounding the Project Area ................................................. 5-13

List of Figures Figure 1-1 : Proposed Action ........................................................................................................ 1-3

Figure 2-1 : Location Map............................................................................................................. 2-2

Figure 2-2 : Aerial Map ................................................................................................................. 2-3

Figure 3-1 : Build Alternative Site Plan ......................................................................................... 3-3

Figure 4-1 : Land Use .................................................................................................................... 4-7

Figure 4-2 : Zoning........................................................................................................................ 4-8

Figure 4-3 : Water Resources ..................................................................................................... 4-10

List of Appendices Appendix A – LODGING FEASIBILITY STUDY

Appendix B – AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE

Appendix C – SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

Appendix D – SEQR FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM (FORTHCOMING)

Appendix E – PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (FORTHCOMING)

Appendix E-1 – PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, PUBLIC & AGENCY COMMENTS (FORTHCOMING)


Table of Contents iv

LIST OF ACRONYMS A AC Advisory Circular

ACS American Community Survey ALP Airport Layout Plan

B BMP Best Management Practice C CAA Clean Air Act

CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations CH4 Methane CIR Compression Ignition Report

CO Carbon Monoxide CRIS Cultural Resources Information System

CWA Clean Water Act D dB Decibel

E EA Environmental Assessment EAS Essential Air Service

ECL Environmental Conservation Law EDR Environmental Data Resources, Inc.

EIS Environmental Impact Statement EO Executive Order

ESA Endangered Species Act F FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FAR Federal Aviation Regulations FEAF Full Environmental Assessment Form

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act

G GA General Aviation GHG Greenhouse Gas

GIS Geographic Information Systems H HC Hydrocarbons HFC Hydrofluorocarbons

hp Horsepower I ILS Instrument Landing System

IPaC USFWS Information, Planning and Consultation ISR Indirect Source Review

L LB Pound

LOS Level of Service M MJ McFarland Johnson MSGP Multi-Sector General Permit


Table of Contents v

N NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NLEB Northern Long-Eared Bat NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide NOX Nitrogen Oxides N2O Nitrous Oxide

NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System NPIAS National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems

NPL National Priorities List NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

NRHP National Register of Historic Places NYCRR New York Codes, Rules and Regulations

NYNHP New York State National Heritage Program NYPAD New York Protected Areas Database NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

NYSDOT New York State Department of Transportation NYSEG New York State Electric and Gas

NWI National Wetlands Inventory O O3 Ozone

OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark OPRHP NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation

P PARC Plattsburgh Airbase Redevelopment Corporation Pb Lead

PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls PFC Perfluorocarbons

PM Particulate Matter R RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RevPAR Revenue Per Available Room RDG Regional Distribution Center RHA Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act

ROD Record of Decision S SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

SEQRA New York State Environmental Quality Review Act SF6 Sulfur Hexafluoride

SIP State Implementation Plan SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SO2 Sulfur Dioxide SPCC Spill Prevention Countermeasure Control Plan

SPDES State Pollution Discharge Elimination System SSA Sole Source Aquifer SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan

T TNW Traditional Navigable Water


Table of Contents vi

TSA Transportation Security Administration U USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

UAEDRC Upstate Airport Economic Development and Revitalization Competition USAF U.S. Air Force USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey V VOC Volatile Organic Compounds

W WQC Water Quality Certification


Introduction 1-1

1. INTRODUCTION

This Environmental Assessment (EA) addresses the potential social, economic, and environmental consequences associated with the proposed hotel development project at the Plattsburgh International Airport (PBG or Airport), airport identifier PBG, located at 42 Airport Lane, Plattsburgh, Clinton County, New York. The project includes development for an “Airport Hotel” and restaurant with associated parking areas and access road.

The Airport has seen rapid growth since commercial operations began in 2007. To address the needs of the growing Airport, the Airport Terminal building and terminal parking was expanded and completed in 2016. The Plattsburgh International Airport Terminal Expansion Final Environmental Assessment, dated May 2012, discussed the future and/or potential development of a hotel in the vicinity of the former Plattsburgh Air Force Base (PAFB) Alert Facility, which formerly occupied the proposed project area. In 2011, Clinton County commissioned a study to coordinate efforts with the city of Plattsburgh and determine the feasibility of a hotel. The Lodging Feasibility Study, conducted by Spurrier Consulting and updated in 2017, reflects current operations at the Airport and market conditions in the city of Plattsburgh and the surrounding area. The Lodging Feasibility Study is included in Appendix A. Based upon the findings in the study conducted for the County and current developer interest, the Airport Hotel is being proposed to primarily accommodate Airport users. Secondarily, the hotel and restaurant development would support interstate travelers, tourists for the city of Plattsburgh and surrounding area, and the local community.

This EA has been prepared in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) guidelines and is in conformance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969; the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations stated in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 1500-1508, the FAA Environmental Desk Reference dated July 2015, and FAA Orders 1050.1F, Policies and Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts, and 5050.4B, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions. Upon reviewing this document, the FAA will determine if any of the environmental or socioeconomic impacts identified herein are significant and warrant further study.

State and local officials will also be given the opportunity to review this document per U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Order 4600.13, Intergovernmental Review of Department of Transportation Programs and Activities.

In addition, this document satisfies the environmental review requirements under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) 6 NYCRR Part 617. Under SEQRA, this EA will serve as the basis for the Lead Agency to issue a Positive or Negative Declaration. The Proposed Action would be classified as a Type I Action. A Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) has been completed and is included in Appendix D. The development projects that comprise the Proposed Action evaluated in this EA are listed below.


Introduction 1-2

1.1. PROPOSED ACTION

The Proposed Action, further detailed in Chapter 3, Alternatives Analysis, is driven by the Airport Sponsor’s desire to have an Airport Hotel to provide accommodations for the current demand and the future demand forecasted to the year 2030, including low-cost carrier flights and future international flights. The Proposed Action is expected to provide full service lodging facilities for Airport users, Airport industrial park users, and long-term parking for hotel guests. The hotel would offer a major convenience to all Airport users and further enhance the market competitiveness of the Airport. Additionally, the development would provide an additional lodging option for the expected area tourism growth.

An overall plan of the Proposed Action is provided below (see Figure 1-1) and figures illustrating the Proposed Action covered herein are referenced throughout the EA.

The Proposed Action consists of the following objectives to meet the overall purpose of the proposed project:

• Construction of an access road connecting New York State (NYS) Route 22 (Crete Boulevard) to hotel and restaurant.

• Construction of an approximate 80-120 room hotel and associated parking.

• Rehabilitation of existing parking lot for long-term parking for hotel/airport users.

• Construction of a pedestrian walkway from the long-term parking lot and hotel to access existing Airport Terminal parking walkway.

• Construction of a full-service restaurant and associated parking.

• Removal of portions of existing Lemay Drive and former PAFB Alert Facility access road.

• Installation of utility and stormwater management facilities.

Plattsburgh International AirportDo

cumen

t Path

:

1-3

©@22

AirportTerminal

Crete Boulevard

Arizona Avenue

CITY OF PLATTSBURGH

TOWN OF PLATTSBURGH

Proposed Hotel

& Parking

Proposed Restaurant& Parking

Long-TermParking

ProposedAccess Road

PedestrianWalkway

Figure 1-1: Proposed Action

³

Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, EarthstarGeographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN,IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community0 150 30075 FEET

SCALE

Introduction

Environmental Assessment

Lemay Drive

Project Area provided by McFarland Johnson

LegendProject Area


Introduction 1-4



Purpose and Need 2-1

2. PURPOSE AND NEED

The Purpose and Need Statement in a NEPA document is a formal statement of the overall goals

and objectives of a Proposed Action. The statement documents the justification for the project

and provides the basis for evaluating the effectiveness of alternatives.

2.1. BACKGROUND

The Airport and project area, consisting of the proposed access road, pedestrian walkway, long-

term parking, hotel, and restaurant, is located in the southwestern portion of the city of

Plattsburgh, Clinton County, New York (see Figure 2-1, USGS Location Map and Figure 2-2, Aerial

Map). The Airport, formerly known PAFB, is owned and operated by Clinton County. The proposed

project is located on an 18-acre parcel owned by the County and designated as non-aviation

preservation area on the current Airport Layout Plan (ALP).

PBG is classified as a Non-Hub Primary Commercial Service Airport by the 2017-2021 National Plan

of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). PBG’s service area includes the North Country region of the

State of New York, northwestern Vermont, as well as portions of the Provinces of Ontario and

Quebec in Canada. PBG is 20 miles from the U.S.-Canada border along Lake Champlain, across the

lake from Burlington, Vermont. With one runway, PBG has scheduled passenger service provided

by three FAA-certified airlines. In addition to the commercial and cargo flight activity, general

aviation uses and other aviation development and industrial activities comprise a significant

portion of activity at PBG.

The presence of reputable low cost carriers operating at PBG, such as Allegiant Air and Spirit

Airlines, has been largely attributable to the Airport’s rapid growth. These carriers provide non-

stop or one-stop service to leisure destinations such as Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, and several

destinations in Florida.

The low-cost carrier success at PBG is due to the low fares, low Airport costs (parking, etc.), ample

airfield facilities, easy access to the Interstate highway system (I-87), and proximity to the large

Montreal, Quebec market. According to surveys conducted by Clinton County, Canadian travelers

are willing to undergo the inconvenience of crossing the U.S.-Canada border in order to capitalize

on the significant airfare cost savings available at PBG compared to Montreal’s Trudeau

International Airport. A windshield survey of the terminal parking areas, estimates that

approximately 60 percent of Airport user vehicles have Canadian license plates.

PenAir also provides non-stop service to Boston – Logan International Airport, under the USDOT’s

Essential Air Service (EAS) Program.


cumen

t Path

: K:\PL

ATTSBU

RGH\T

-17426

.11 St

ate Pr

ojects

EA\Dr

aw\GI

S\2-1E

AUSG

S.mxd

2-2

Project Area

Figure 2-1: USGS Location Map

³

Service Layer Credits: Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed0 1,000 2,000500 FEET

SCALE


Purpose and NeedProject Area provided by McFarland Johnson


cumen

t Path

: K:\PL

ATTSBU

RGH\T

-17426

.11 St

ate Pr

ojects

EA\Dr

aw\GI

S\2-2E

AAeri

al_rev

.mxd

2-3

©@22

AirportTerminal

Project AreaCrete Boulevard

Arizona Avenue

CITY OF PLATTSBURGH

TOWN OF PLATTSBURGH

Figure 2-2: Aerial Map

³

Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, EarthstarGeographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN,IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community0 160 32080 FEET

SCALE

Purpose and Need


Lemay Drive

Project Area provided by McFarland Johnson



The proposed “Airport Hotel” concept has been considered in past Airport planning processes to

address and accommodate forecasted future growth at the Airport. The Terminal Expansion EA,

dated May 2012, briefly discussed an “Airport Hotel” in the vicinity of the former PAFB Alert Facility

as a potential future development project. In addition, Plattsburgh County made efforts to

determine the probability of success of a lodging facility adjacent to the Airport and subsequently,

a Lodging Feasibility Study for the proposed hotel development was requested by the County and

is referenced throughout this EA. The County is actively negotiating with an interested developer

with groundbreaking for the site development anticipated in April 2018. The proposed project

area is currently designated as a non-aviation use, which enhances the feasibility of non-aviation

development.

2.2. ROLE OF PBG IN THE REGIONAL ECONOMY

The presence of PBG and its commercial airline service benefits the region in terms of time-saved

and costs-avoided for air travel. PBG derives most of its market share from Canadian airline

passengers. PBG’s branding as “Montreal’s U.S. Airport” and the presence of low-cost carriers has

been effective in increasing the number of Canadian passengers travelling to and from the region

each year. PBG recently completed Phase II of a $60 million terminal project. The project tripled

the size of the terminal, included the addition of state-of-the-industry security measures, baggage

claim areas, ticketing, and a Federal Inspection Services (FIS) facility for clearance of international

passengers, which is currently under construction. The FIS facility will allow PBG to pursue

international flight service, thus increasing the Airport’s opportunities for future growth. PBG

enplanements have steadily increased over the past five years and, according to County officials,

a flight was added in 2016, increasing enplanements for the year 2017. Enplanements are

expected to continue to increase based on the new terminal and FIS facilities.

In addition, Clinton County was recently awarded $38 million through the Upstate Airport

Economic Development and Revitalization Competition (UAEDRC) for capital improvement

projects at the Airport. The money awarded to PBG will fund the Proposed Action and other

projects, including, but not limited to, demolition of old PAFB buildings, terminal parking lot

improvements, a concession space fit out within the new terminal building, a General Aviation

customs facility, a public transportation facility, and hangar rehabilitations. The money awarded

demonstrates the state’s acknowledgement of the Airport’s recent growth and support of the

forecasted growth and demand for updated facilities and Airport amenities. The above projects

are unrelated and independent of the Proposed Action and are therefore not being considered in

this EA.

PBG boasts an industrial park with intermodal connections to I-87 and to both U.S. and Canadian

rail networks. The Plattsburgh community has taken advantage of this asset and recruited multiple

industries specializing in transportation equipment in need of larger buildings and/or maintenance

facilities, including Westinghouse Airbrake, NovaBus, and most recently Nosk Titanium.

The presence of PBG and its facilities also stimulates new business development. Local and

regional groups including, The Development Corporation in Plattsburgh, are anticipating the

UAEDRC projects will provide economic development opportunities that will provide long-term

benefits to the region.



2.3. PURPOSE AND NEED

The overall purpose of the Proposed Action is to provide hotel and restaurant facilities to Airport

users and other travelers and tourists. The Proposed Action would provide the following:

• Reuse of the former USAFB Alert Facility site and parking area;

• Addition of a full service extended-stay hotel and related facilities and long-term parking

and restaurant within walking distance to the Airport;

• Enhance Airport user convenience for long distance and future international flight

travelers; and

• Economic benefits in terms of new private investment, public revenues to the County, and

new employment opportunities and economic activity generated at the Airport.

PBG serves an important role as a regional airport and “Montreal’s U.S. Airport”. The proposed

hotel is expected to serve as the Airport Hotel. The proposed hotel and restaurant would provide

a major new asset to all Airport users and further enhance the market competitiveness of the

Airport. As airports continue to evolve with more diverse economic activities, airport hotels are

increasingly seen as important market segments with meeting and conference elements and

growing room demand. Most competitive and international airports have hotels with direct

terminal access, and broad user amenities and conference facilities.

Competition for the proposed hotel and restaurant is primarily found in the developed area off

Exit 37 from I-87. There are similar sized hotels located within a 15-mile radius of the Airport.

However, there are no hotels located within walking distance to the Airport, near Exit 37, or on

Crete Boulevard (NYS Route 22) and there are no extended -stay hotels in the area. The proposed

long-term parking provides an additional Airport user convenience for hotel guests.

According to the Lodging Feasibility Study, the proposed hotel would be introduced into a lodging

market with increasing rates and revenue per available room (RevPAR), suggesting increased

demand for these facilities. The proposed hotel and restaurant would also expand the market

choices available to the overnight lodging marketplace and full service restaurant market.

The proposed hotel would primarily serve existing and future demands from low cost carrier and

international flights. The current forecast for the PBG project will lead to over 300,000

enplanements annually in 2030. The proposed hotel would also benefit the large percentage of

Canadian passengers and early morning flyers, including Spirit Airline passengers who typically

have early morning flights during the wintertime peak operational period.

Additionally, the hotel is expected to serve out of town and future international travelers that use

the Airport’s industrial park, including the global company, Bombardier.

Room utilization and traveler bookings are based on capturing existing and future demand from

Airport operations and offer substantial market value through its direct connection to the Airport

Terminal. This also has a secondary benefit to the region by limiting carbon emissions and vehicular

traffic (vans, buses, taxis, and private cars) to and from the Airport to accommodate this demand.



2.4. SUMMARY

PBG is an important economic engine for Clinton County. Enplanements have increased over the

past five years as a result of the terminal expansion, Canadian user increase, and the addition of

low-cost carrier flights. Airport growth has far exceeded the growth anticipated in the FAA-

approved forecast for PBG and operations are expected to continue to grow.

Overall, the proposed project would reuse a former PAFB facility site to provide full service lodging

facilities for Airport users, Airport industrial park users, potential interstate travelers, and tourists;

provide long-term parking for hotel guests; and provide a full-service restaurant to accommodate

the current demands and forecasted growth at PBG, the expected area tourism growth, and the

surrounding community. The proposed hotel would also provide lodging accommodations with

direct access to the Airport Terminal, thus improving the Airport user convenience.


Alternatives 3-1

3. ALTERNATIVES

No Build Alternative and Build Alternative were evaluated for the proposed project. The focus of

the alternatives analysis is on the ability to provide a hotel to meet existing and future demands

of the Airport operations and provide direct terminal access from the hotel.

The proposed “Airport Hotel” concept has been considered in the Airport planning process to

accommodate forecasted future growth at the Airport. As stated in Chapter 2, Purpose and Need,

County and Airport officials have been involved in feasibility studies for the hotel and have been

actively searching for interested hotel developers for the Airport. The preferred Build Alternative

was based on a conceptual layout provided by an interested developer. The initial conceptual

layout was advanced with feedback provided by County and Airport officials and the current

interested developer.

3.1. BUILD ALTERNATIVE

Overall, the Build Alternative consists of the construction of a three to four story hotel, access

road, restaurant, and associated parking areas, as shown on Figure 3-1. A new road connecting

NYS Route 22 (Crete Boulevard) to Lemay Drive, would be constructed to provide direct access to

the proposed restaurant and hotel from NYS Route 22. Portions of Lemay Drive and the former

PAFB Alert Facility access road would be removed and restored to landscaped or grass areas.

Traffic impacts to NYS Route 22 from the proposed development were considered and found to

be negligible (see Appendix C, Traffic Impact Study). However, existing conditions at the NYS Route

22 intersection with Arizona Avenue may require some offsite improvements at the intersection.

To enhance the evening peak hour operating conditions on the Arizona Avenue approach to NYS

Route 22, the city of Plattsburgh may request some intersection improvements, such as a

dedicated left turn lane at the Arizona Road approach to the intersection.

The proposed hotel would have a combination of approximately 80 to 120 standard and extended-

stay rooms, depending on the chosen hotel brand and final design. The hotel parking lot would

provide approximately 164 parking spaces to accommodate hotel guests and employees. The

proposed site development would include the reuse and rehabilitation of an existing parking lot

as long-term parking for hotel guests that are also Airport users. A pedestrian walkway from the

long-term parking lot and hotel would provide airport users direct access to the Airport Terminal

via an existing terminal parking walkway.

The restaurant development would consist of a typical full-service restaurant and a parking lot

with approximately 100 parking spaces.

Utilities, including sanitary sewer, electric, water, and stormwater are available on-site. A

connection to the gas line, located on NYS Route 22, is proposed. Stormwater runoff from new

impervious areas would be conveyed, collected, and treated with proposed stormwater

management structures. These stormwater structures would ultimately direct stormwater to


Alternatives 3-2

existing stormwater drainage pipes on-site that discharge to the Saranac River located north of

the project area.

The proposed project would be constructed in phases. Phase I would include the construction of

the access road from NYS Route 22 to the hotel western parking area, the hotel western parking

area, and the hotel water and sanitary sewer utilities extensions. Construction of Phase I is

expected to begin in Spring 2018 and be completed by Fall 2018. Phase II, construction of the

hotel, restaurant, and associated parking, are dependent on developer(s) commitment and

schedule.

The proposed hotel would meet the purpose and need of providing lodging accommodations for

current Airport users and the projected growth of low cost carrier flights and future international

flights. The proposed pedestrian walkway enhances the Airport user convenience and allows for

direct access to the Airport Terminal. The hotel and associated long-term parking also cuts down

on greenhouse gas emissions from vehicular traffic to and from the Airport. Secondarily, the hotel

would provide an additional lodging option, including extended-stay, for users of the Airport

industrial park, interstate travelers, and tourists.

The proximity to the existing Airport Terminal and NYS Route 22, coupled with the parcel’s existing

non-aviation use designation limits the range of project site alternatives. The project site is

previously disturbed with asphalt and mowed grass. No environmental constraints, including

wetlands or threatened and endangered species, are present on the project site that would dictate

or influence the design alternatives. Therefore, the site layout has been optimized for space and

operational efficiency. There are no other suitable locations for this type of development that

would provide direct access to the Airport Terminal and avoid significant environmental impacts.

This alternative would be constructed on a previously disturbed site with asphalt and maintained

grassy areas. There are no notable environmental or socioeconomic consequences associated with

the proposed project.

3.2. NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE

The No Build Alternative does not address any of the elements of the purpose and need. Under

this alternative, no changes are made to the vacant parcel already designated for non-aviation

use. Most competitive and international airports have hotels with direct terminal access. Under

this alternative, PBG would not be able to provide Airport users the lodging convenience for long

distance travelers, including future international flights. This alternative would not generate

additional revenue or create additional jobs. Based on the above the No Build Alternative is not

considered as prudent or feasible.

3.3. ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The Build Alternative is the preferred alternative because it meets the needs of the County, the

Airport, existing Airport users, and future international passengers. The proposed hotel location is

ideal due to its proximity to the Airport Terminal and NYS Route 22, available utility services, as

well as the previously disturbed site, including the existing parking area. The preferred alternative

avoids and minimizes environmental and socioeconomic impacts to the maximum extent

practicable.

LEGEND:

AIRPORT PROPERTY LINEASPHALT TO BE REMOVEDPROPOSED 8" WATER LINEPROPOSED GAS LINEPROPOSED STORM DRAINPROPOSED SANITARY SEWEREXISTING SANITARY SEWEREXISTING STORM DRAINEXISTING WATER LINEFENCECONTOUR LINE

8'' WGSTSA

XXX

K:\P

LA

TTSB

UR

GH

\T-17426.11 State P

ro

jects EA

\D

raw

\D

raw

in

gs\Fig

ures\17426.13-C

-EN

VR

_FIG

UR

E 3-1.d

wg

, M

J - 22x34, 9/1/2017 7:23:11 A

M,

jsm

earin

g



Affected Environment 4-1

4. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

This chapter describes the environmental and social settings of the project site and the

surrounding area. Information pertaining to the affected environment was obtained through on-

site investigations, a review of published information, agency correspondence, and discussions

with Airport personnel and public officials. The information presented herein serves as a basis

for the assessment of environmental, social, and economic consequences (refer to Chapter 5)

associated with the Proposed Action.

4.1. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Biological resources refer to the various types of flora (plants) and fauna (fish, birds, reptiles,

amphibians, mammals, etc.), including state and federally listed threatened and endangered

species, in a particular area. It also encompasses the habitats supporting the various flora and

fauna including rivers, lakes, wetlands, forests, and other ecological communities. Airport

projects can affect these ecological communities and thereby affect vegetation and wildlife

populations.

4.1.1. Ecological Communities

Most of the Airport and adjacent areas have been significantly disturbed by past Airport

construction and the surrounding residential, industrial, and commercial development. The

majority of the habitat at the project site consists of mowed grassland. There are no forested

habitat areas on-site. The remainder of the project site consists of asphalt roadways and parking

area, and stormwater management infrastructure.

4.1.1.1 State and Federal Listed Threatened and Endangered Species

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) directs all federal agencies to work to conserve endangered

and threatened species and to use their authorities to further the purposes of the ESA. Section 7

of the ESA, titled “Interagency Cooperation,” is the mechanism by which federal agencies ensure

the actions they take, including those they fund or authorize, do not jeopardize the existence of

any listed species. Endangered species are those which are in danger of extinction throughout

their range or a significant portion of its range. Threatened species are those which are likely to

become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of their

range. Candidate species are species that the United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) has

sufficient information on the biological vulnerability and threats to support issuance of a

proposal list, but issuance of a proposed rule is currently precluded by higher priority listing

actions. Candidate species do not receive substantive or procedural protection under the ESA.

However, USFWS does encourage federal agencies and other appropriate parties to consider

these species in the planning process.

New York State authority over threatened and endangered species is promulgated under

regulation 6 of New York Codes, Rules and Regulations (NYCRR) Part 182, which prohibits the

take or engagement in any activity that is likely to result in a take of any state-listed threatened



or endangered species. In accordance with Part 182, 'Take' or 'Taking' means the pursuing,

shooting, hunting, killing, capturing, trapping, snaring, and netting of any species listed as

endangered or threatened, and all lesser acts such as disturbing, harassing, or worrying. Species

listed as endangered in New York are native species in imminent danger of extirpation or

extinction in New York, or are species listed as endangered by the U.S. Department of the

Interior. Species listed as threatened in New York are native species that are likely to become an

endangered species within the foreseeable future in New York. Species listed as species of

special concern are native species that are at risk of becoming threatened in New York. Fauna

classified as species of special concern do not qualify as either endangered or threatened, but

have been determined by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

(NYSDEC) to require some measure of protection to ensure that the species does not become

threatened in the future. Species of special concern are considered “protected wildlife” under

Article 11 of the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL).

A review of the USFWS Information, Planning and Consultation (IPaC) system was conducted

most recently on September 13, 2017. The USFWS database indicated the range of the federally

threatened northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), federally endangered Indiana bat

(Myotis sodalis), and migratory birds, including the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), cover

the vicinity of the project area. The USFWS Official Species List dated September 13, 2017 is

included in Appendix B.

A response from the NYSDEC New York Natural Heritage Program (NYNHP), dated July 13, 2017,

indicated that a significant natural community, rich sloping fen, is located within 0.5 mile of the

project site. The fen is located west of the Airport entrance and on the south side of NYS Route

22. According to NYNHP, the fen has been disturbed by past filling activities and construction of

the adjacent road and airport runway lights. The Proposed Action is not located near the fen

where it would directly or indirectly cause impacts to the significant natural community. The

NYNHP report does not include the northern long-eared bat because there are no documented

records of this species within the search radius of the project area. The standard search radius

for northern long-eared bat is 5 miles. A copy of the NYNHP correspondence dated July 13, 2017

has been included in Appendix B.

The NLEB was listed as threatened under the ESA in May 2015. The NLEB can be found across

much of the eastern and north central United States and into Canada. The primary threat to this

species is white-nose syndrome, which was previously mentioned as detrimental to the Indiana

bat as well. Populations of the NLEB in the northeast have declined by 99 percent since

symptoms of white-nose syndrome were first observed in 2006.

A final 4(d) rule, published in the Federal Register on January 14, 2016, describes measures

necessary to provide for the conservation of the NLEB. Tree removal within 150 feet of a known

occupied maternity roost tree from June 1 through July 31 or within 0.25 mile of a hibernaculum

at any time is considered an “incidental take” and is prohibited. The response from USFWS is to

have a time of year restriction, June 1 through July 31, for tree removal to avoid potential

impacts to roosting NLEB. Only two 20-inch pine trees (Pinus spp.) are located on the project site

and therefore impacts to the bats are not anticipated. Given the presence of two pine trees,

NLEB are highly unlikely to be present within the project area. Also, according to NYSDEC, the

nearest NLEB known occurrence is in the town of Ausable, which is 7.5 miles south of the project



area, therefore, impacts as a result of the Proposed Action are not anticipated. However, tree

removal would be limited to August 1 through May 31 to avoid direct impacts to potential

occupied roost trees.

Although the bald eagle is no longer protected under the ESA, it is still protected by the Bald and

Golden Eagle Protection Act, the Lacey Act, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Breeding and

summer habitat is typically associated with open water resources, including rivers, swamps,

ponds, and lakes, nests are usually built atop tall trees within close proximately to open water.

Bald eagles often congregate during the winter months in areas where surface waters typically

don’t freeze over including larger rivers and lakes, or near sewage treatment and hydroelectric

plants. Bald eagles are known to frequent the shores of Lake Champlain throughout the year and

the Saranac River during the warmer months. However, based on the nature of the project,

there should be no impacts to bald eagles.

4.2. COASTAL RESOURCES

Federally-funded airport projects must meet the requirements of two coastal resources

management programs. Federally-funded projects require consistency with the Coastal Zone

Management Program under National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

Regulations. Additionally, federal financial assistance is prohibited for development within the

designated coastal barriers of the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, as specified in the Coastal Barriers

Resources Act of 1982. Coastal resources consist of all natural resources occurring within coastal

waters and their adjacent shorelands, including but not limited to, islands, dunes, beaches,

wetlands, floodplains, as well as fish and wildlife and their respective habitats within these areas.

The Airport is not located within a designated coastal zone or barrier; therefore, the Coastal

Zone Management Program and Coastal Barriers Resources Act do not apply.

4.3. SECTION 4(F) RESOURCES

Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966 protects significant publicly owned parks, recreational

areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and public and private historic sites.

There are no federally-designated wildlife or waterfowl refuges within the vicinity of the Airport.

In addition, there are no National or State forests within the vicinity. A public golf course is

located adjacent to the southeastern boundary of the Airport. This facility is approximately two

miles south of the proposed project.

Cultural and historic resources are discussed in Section 4.5.

4.4. FARMLANDS

Land use surrounding the Airport is a mixture of residential, commercial, community service,

vacant, and public services. According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey, the project area does not

contain farmland soils as classified by the NRCS. The soil map for the project area is included in

Appendix C.



4.5. HISTORIC AND ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 requires that federal agencies such as

the FAA consider the effects of their actions on historic properties via consultation with the State

Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). According to 36 CFR Part 800, an historic property is “any

prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for,

inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).” The New York State Office of Parks,

Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) is responsible for maintaining historical,

archaeological, and cultural resources sites throughout the state.

According to the SHPO Cultural Resources Information System (CRIS) there are no historic or

cultural resources on or in the immediate vicinity of the Airport. However, the southernmost

portion of the project area is located within an archaeological sensitive area, according to CRIS

mapping. Due to the former use of the Airport property and surrounding area as an Air Force

Base, a Programmatic Agreement between SHPO, the USAF, and the Advisory Council on Historic

Preservation, regarding historical resources at the former Plattsburgh Air Force Base was made

in 2000. The Agreement directs the agencies on the responsibilities, operations, and

maintenance of historic and cultural resources related to the former Air Force Base.

Consultation with SHPO was initiated to determine the impacts on historical or cultural resources

as a result of the Proposed Action. Correspondence with SHPO, dated July 27, 2017, states they

have reviewed the project and determined historic properties would not be affected by the

Proposed Action. A copy of the correspondence with SHPO has been included in Appendix B.

4.6. LAND USE

The Airport is located in the town of Plattsburgh, just south of the city of Plattsburgh, near the

banks of Lake Champlain in eastern Clinton County, New York. Eastern Clinton County consists

mostly of lowlands and rolling hills. Agricultural is the primary land use in this area and there are

few areas of dense development and population. The town and city of Plattsburgh are significant

population centers in this area and in the County.

Regional access to PBG is provided by Interstate 87 (I-87) which travels from north to south

approximately one mile west of the Airport. Local highway access to PBG is provided by NYS

Route 22, which extends from I-87 at Exit 36.

The Airport is 70 miles south of Montreal, Canada; 160 miles north of Albany, New York; and 15

miles west of Vermont via the Cumberland Head-Grand Isle. The Airport and surrounding area

are depicted in Figure 2-1, Location Map and Figure 2-2, Aerial Map.

The project area consists of maintained grass, asphalt access roads and parking lot, two

evergreen trees, and stormwater management infrastructure. The actual land area within the

Airport property includes a total of approximately 5,000 acres. This land consists of various lots

collectively designated for mostly aviation use. The project site is located in an area on the

Airport property that has been dedicated for non-aviation use. A spur of the Delaware & Hudson

Railroad, a division of Canadian Pacific Railway, is located approximately 100 feet east of the

project site.



The project area land use is classified as vacant. In general, land uses in the vicinity of the project

area include scattered areas of industrial use to the north and east, commercial to the south and

east, residential to the east, community services to the east, and vacant land to the south and

east. In addition, residential uses are intermittent near the Airport and become denser down

Peru Street and NYS Route 22. The Airport land use classification, public service, is located

immediately to the west of the project area. Land uses are depicted on Figure 4-1. Industrial and

commercial uses are discussed further in Section 4.6.

4.6.1. Zoning

The project area is located within the city of Plattsburgh and regulated by the city zoning

ordinance. The project area is located within an area zoned as Industrial (I). Zoning to the north

and east of the project area within the city of Plattsburgh is Industrial and further east

Residential (R2).

The project area borders the town of Plattsburgh to the west and south. The Airport and

property to the south of the project area are designated as Airport District (A-1) and areas within

the town east of Arizona Avenue are designated as Airport District (A-2). A-1 District is intended

to provide for manufacturing and related uses associated with the Airport. A-2 District is

intended to accommodate more intensive manufacturing and related uses associated with the

Airport.

A state-incentivized zone is located on the northeast corner of the Airport. The zone is known as

the Empire Zone. The program provides the development incentives that are state-funded and

include incentive options such as: tax reductions, tax credit, sales tax exemptions, and other

similar programs.

As of the date of the EA, proposed residential development on Iowa Street, less than 2 miles

west of the project area, was proposed. There were no other known planned developments in

the vicinity of the project area according to officials with the town and city of Plattsburgh.

Development is guided by existing Subdivision/Land Use Plans and Zoning Codes. Figure 4-2

depicts the zoning in the vicinity of the project area.

4.6.2. Industrial and Commercial Activities Characteristics

Arizona Avenue, running north-south to the east of the Airport, includes commercial and

community service uses, and provides the access route to support services at the Airport, as well

as access to the Airport tenants. Light industrial uses are located throughout the vicinity,

including along NYS Route 22 and mixed within residential areas to the east, northeast, and

north of the Airport.

4.6.3. Residential Areas, Schools, Places of Worship, Outdoor Areas

There are no schools, places of worship, or outdoor assembly areas in the immediate vicinity of

the Airport. Residential uses are located just to the northeast of the Airport at the intersection of

NYS Route 22 and Arizona Avenue. These residences are mixed with other light industrial and

commercial uses. In addition, residential uses are intermittent near and Airport and become



denser down Peru Street and NYS Route 22 where they eventually become the dominant land

use within this section of the city of Plattsburgh.

4.7. SOCIOECONOMICS, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, AND CHILDREN’S ENVIRONMENTAL

HEALTH AND SAFETY RISKS

This section provides information on the socioeconomic characteristics of the area surrounding

the Airport. The most recent statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Factfinder were

used to examine the population profile, characteristics, and trends for the region.

Table 4-1 below is a brief compilation of demographic profiles for the town of Plattsburgh, the

city of Plattsburgh and Clinton County. As shown on the table, the socioeconomic characteristics

included are population, racial/ethnic composition, median household income, travel time to

work, and population in the labor force.

Table 4-1: Demographics

Town of

Plattsburgh

City of

Plattsburgh Clinton County

Population 11,847 19,845 81,685

Race Data

White 11,300 18,023 75,722

Hispanic or Latino 235 727 2,220

Black or African American 266 1,083 3,911

Asian 212 607 1,380

Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 0 42 64

American Indian/ Alaska or Hawaiian 65 272 622

Other 118 325 1,146

Minority Percentage 4.6% 9.2% 7.3%

Economic Data

Median Household Income $56,980 $37,346 $49,930

Mean Travel Time to Work 16.7 minutes 13.7 minutes 20.6 minutes

In Labor Force 60.5% 55.3% 55.7%

Source: 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.


cumen

t Path

: K:\PL

ATTSBU

RGH\T

-17426

.11 St

ate Pr

ojects

EA\Dr

aw\GI

S\4-1E

ALand

Use.m

xd

4-7

§̈¦87

Connecticut Ave

New York Rd

Project Area

©@22

Arizona Ave

Idaho Ave

S Peru St

Sharron AveWa

ll St

S Cath

erine

St

Main Mill St

Underwood Ave

Montana Dr

Northern Ave

Crete Blvd

CITY OF PLATTSBURGH

TOWN OF PLATTSBURGH

Figure 4-1: Land Use

³Legend

Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, EarthstarGeographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN,IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community0 580 1,160290 FEET

SCALE

Land UseResidentialVacant LandCommercialRecreation and EntertainmentCommunity ServicesIndustrialPublic ServicesWild, Forested, Conservation


Sarana

c Rive

r

Land Use data provided by Clinton CountyProject Area provided by McFarland Johnson

Affected Environment

Lands, and Public Parks


cumen

t Path

: K:\PL

ATTSBU

RGH\T

-17426

.11 St

ate Pr

ojects

EA\Dr

aw\GI

S\4-2E

AZon

ing.m

xd

4-8

§̈¦87

©@22

New York Rd

Arizona Ave

Idaho Ave

S Peru St

Sharron Ave

Wall S

t

S Cath

erine

St

Main Mill St

Underwood Ave

Montana Dr

Northern Ave

Crete Blvd

CITY OF PLATTSBURGH

TOWN OF PLATTSBURGH

Figure 4-2: Zoning

³

Legend

0 525 1,050262.5 FEET

SCALE

Project Area


City of Plattsburgh ZoningB2, Highway BusinessI, IndustrialR1, Low Density ResidentialR2, General Residential

Town of Plattsburgh ZoningA1, Airport 1A2, Airport 2I, IndustrialL, Land ConservationMDR, Medium Density ResidentialNC, Neighborhood CommercialSC, Service Center


Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, EarthstarGeographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN,IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User CommunityParcels data provided by Clinton CountyZoning data provided by the City and the Town of PlattsburghProject Area provided by McFarland Johnson

Sarana

c Rive

r



4.8. WATER RESOURCES

4.8.1. Wetlands

Background information regarding the presence of wetlands in the Airport vicinity was obtained

by reviewing the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping and the NYSDEC State

Freshwater Wetlands Map of the project area. Review of the NWI and NYSDEC mapping of the

project area did not indicate the potential presence of wetlands or waterways on or in the

vicinity of the project area, as shown on Figure 4-3.

A site walkover of the project area was performed by McFarland Johnson in April 2017. During

the site walkover, a preliminary wetland investigation was performed to determine if the

Proposed Action would impact wetlands areas. During the April 2017 site walkover, there was no

evidence of wetlands within the project area or immediate vicinity. The closest waterbody, the

Saranac River is located approximately 450 feet north of the project area on the north side of

Route 22.

Based on the site walkover, there are no state or federally regulated wetlands or non-

jurisdictional wetlands within or in the immediate vicinity of the project area. Therefore, the

Proposed Action is not expected to cause any impacts to wetlands in the project area during the

operation or construction phases of the project.

4.8.2. Floodplains

Based on a review of current Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance

Rate Maps of the project area, the project is not located within a floodway or 100-year flood

plain.

4.8.3. Surface Waters

The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates surface waters under Section 10 of

the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act (RHA) that are considered to be a Traditional Navigable

Water (TNW) as defined specifically there within. The USACE also regulates surface water bodies

through Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) that have a significant nexus to a TNW as

defined in Section 10 of the RHA or a TNW as defined Section 404 of the CWA. A significant

nexus is generally defined as having more than an insubstantial or speculative effect on the

chemical, physical, or biological integrity of a downstream TNW. Surficial open waterbodies,

including streams, ponds, and lakes are delineated by their Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM)

as defined in Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 328 (33 CFR 328).

All applicants for a federal license or permit must obtain a Section 401 Water Quality

Certification (WQC) if the proposed activity may result in any discharge in navigable waters,

including all wetlands, watercourses, and natural and man-made ponds.

The project area and northern portion of the Airport property is located in the Saranac River

watershed. However, there are no streams located on the project area. Saranac River and its

proximity to the Proposed Action is shown on Figure 4-3. Impacts to surface waters are not

anticipated as a result of the Proposed Action.


cumen

t Path

: K:\PL

ATTSBU

RGH\T

-17426

.11 St

ate Pr

ojects

EA\Dr

aw\GI

S\4-3E

AWate

rResou

rces.m

xd

4-10

©@22

Figure 4-3: Water Resources

³ Legend

Service Layer Credits: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Standards andSupport Team, [email protected]: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS UserCommunity0 240 480120 FEET

SCALE

Project Area


Lemay DriveSaranac River

Arizona Ave

Parcels data provided by Clinton CountyNYSDEC Wetlands provided by NYSDEC (CUGIR)NYSDEC Wetlands 100' Buffer and Project Location provided by McFarland JohnsonNational Wetland Inventory provided by USFWS (map service)

WetlandsWETLANDS

Estuarine and Marine DeepwaterEstuarine and Marine WetlandFreshwater Emergent WetlandFreshwater Forested/Shrub WetlandFreshwater PondLakeOtherRiverine

ParcelsNYSDEC WetlandsNYSDEC Wetlands 100' Buffer

National Wetland Inventory




4.8.4. Groundwater

The Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Sole Source Aquifer (SSA) program was

established under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). According to the USEPA, a SSA is defined

as one that supplies at least 50 percent of the drinking water for its service area, and wherein

which there is no reasonably available alternative drinking water sources should the aquifer

become contaminated. The SSA program allows for USEPA review of federally funded projects

that have the potential to affect designated SSAs and their source areas.

According to the USEPA interactive SSA map, there are no SSAs located on or within the vicinity

of the project area. Soils in the area of the project are classified as well drained sandy soils.

Water for the Airport is provided by the town of Plattsburgh’s water system. The source of

water for the town of Plattsburgh is a series of five deep wells.

Overall, the Proposed Action is not expected to cause any significant impacts to groundwater

quality, including the public drinking water supply, in the project area during the operation or

construction phases of the project.

4.8.5. National and State Forests, Wilderness Areas, and Wild and Scenic Rivers

The eastern edge of the Adirondack Forest Preserve is approximately 10 miles west of PBG. The

Preserve is comprised of a mixture of private and public land, including some areas designated

by New York State as Wilderness Area and some as State Forest. No National or State forests,

wilderness areas, eligible or designated wild and scenic rivers are present within the project

area.




Plattsburgh International AirportPlattsburgh International AirportPlattsburgh International AirportPlattsburgh International Airport EnvirEnvirEnvirEnvironmental Assessmentonmental Assessmentonmental Assessmentonmental Assessment

Environmental ConsequencesEnvironmental ConsequencesEnvironmental ConsequencesEnvironmental Consequences 5555----1111

5.5.5.5. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCESENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCESENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCESENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Chapter 5 describes the anticipated environmental, social, and economic consequences of the

Proposed Action. Information pertaining to the environmental consequences was obtained

through an evaluation of the conceptual design plans, on-site investigations, review of published

information, agency correspondence, and discussions with Airport personnel and public officials.

Each environmental impact category has conditions that normally indicate a threshold beyond

which the impact is considered significant and an EIS is required for the Proposed Action.

However, if mitigation measures included as part of the Proposed Action reduce the impacts

below significant threshold levels, an EIS would not be necessary and the action may be

concluded with a FONSI or FONSI/ROD.

5.1.5.1.5.1.5.1. RESOURCES NOT AFFECTRESOURCES NOT AFFECTRESOURCES NOT AFFECTRESOURCES NOT AFFECTEDEDEDED

The following resources are not affected by the Proposed Action due to their absence within the

project area as well as their absence in the surrounding area.

• Coastal Zones

• Coastal Barriers

• Section 4(f)

• Farmland

• Floodplains

• Groundwater

• Wetlands

• Wild and Scenic Rivers

5.2.5.2.5.2.5.2. AIR QUALITYAIR QUALITYAIR QUALITYAIR QUALITY

Under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAA), the USEPA promulgated the General

Conformity regulations of 1993. Under the CAA, the USEPA monitors the nation’s primary

ambient air quality parameters as specified in the National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS) which specifies criteria for six air pollutants. These pollutants include ozone (O3),

carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), lead (Pb), particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10),

and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Depending upon the continual air quality monitoring results, the status

of every area or county is designated as in attainment, non-attainment, or maintenance for each

of these six pollutants. The status for each area or county in the United States is reported in the

monthly release of “The Green Book Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants.” Any area that

does not exceed NAAQS air quality standards for any of the six monitored pollutants is

considered in attainment. Clinton County is not located within a nonattainment or maintenance

area per the USEPA Green Book dated August 1, 2017

(https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/anayo_ny.html).

The procedures for determining whether a proposed airport development would significantly

affect air quality are described in the Aviation Emissions and Air Quality Handbook Version 3,

Environmental AssessmentEnvironmental AssessmentEnvironmental AssessmentEnvironmental Assessment Plattsburgh International AirportPlattsburgh International AirportPlattsburgh International AirportPlattsburgh International Airport


Update 1 (Report No. DOT/FAA/AEE/2015-01). The three overlapping regulatory processes,

briefly described below, applicable to assessing the air quality affects from airport development

are Indirect Source Review (ISR), NAAQS Assessment, and Transportation or General Conformity.

Indirect sources of pollution are locations (airports, highways, parking lots, etc.) that attract or

may attract sources of pollutions (automobiles) and thereby indirectly cause or increase air

contaminant emissions. An ISR is not required in New York, except for projects in the southern

portion of New York County (Manhattan), and is thus not applicable to this project in Clinton

County.

General Conformity is required under CAA Section 176(c) for Federal actions, including FAA

actions, to meet the state’s applicable State Implementation Plan (SIP) to achieve or maintain

the NAAQS within CAA timeframes. Clinton County is not located with a nonattainment or

maintenance area; therefore, the General Conformity Rules do not apply to this project.

The NEPA assessment is used to analyze airport development projects in states without ISR. An

operational emissions inventory is utilized, when appropriate, to compare increases or decreases

in emissions for improvements that are anticipated to affect air quality. A review of the Aviation

Emissions and Air Quality Handbook Version 3, Update 1, Figure 4-3 (Air Quality Assessment

Decision Flow Diagram) and Figure 4-5 (Air Quality Assessment Examples), was completed to

determine the required level of review for the development of a hotel and restaurant.

The proposed hotel and restaurant will not cause an increase in aviation operations at the

Airport. Further, the hotel and restaurant are anticipated to be utilized primarily by customers in

advance or after the completion of scheduled flights at the Airport, or by tourists who will be

traveling through the area in need of lodging, regardless of the presence of the hotel at the

Airport, and the increase in motor vehicle traffic associated with the hotel and restaurant are

anticipated to be negligible. The development of the on-site hotel and restaurant could

potentially slightly decrease air emissions within the area by reducing trips between the Airport

and hotels and restaurants within the Plattsburgh area. As a result, it was determined that a

qualitative review of potential impacts, as noticed above, is appropriate and the hotel and

restaurant development are not likely to lead to changes in operational emissions as the Airport

and require no further assessment.

5.2.1.5.2.1.5.2.1.5.2.1. Air Quality Air Quality Air Quality Air Quality Construction ImpactsConstruction ImpactsConstruction ImpactsConstruction Impacts

Potential impacts to air quality during construction were also considered for nitrous oxides

(NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOC)/hydrocarbons (HC), particulate matter (PM), and

carbon monoxide (CO). The equipment shown in Table 5Table 5Table 5Table 5----1111 is likely to be used for construction of

the proposed improvements.



Table 5Table 5Table 5Table 5----1111: Construction Emission Usage Summary: Construction Emission Usage Summary: Construction Emission Usage Summary: Construction Emission Usage Summary

EquipmentEquipmentEquipmentEquipment

Assumed Assumed Assumed Assumed

Equipment Equipment Equipment Equipment

Horsepower Horsepower Horsepower Horsepower

(hp)(hp)(hp)(hp)

Usage in Days based on 10Usage in Days based on 10Usage in Days based on 10Usage in Days based on 10----

Hour Work DaysHour Work DaysHour Work DaysHour Work Days

Projected Hours To Be Projected Hours To Be Projected Hours To Be Projected Hours To Be

UsedUsedUsedUsed

Excavator 380 30 300

Backhoe 128 30 300

Bulldozer 175 30 300

Skid Steer 95 90 900

Roller 137 60 600

Paver 225 10 100

Water Truck 250 90 900

End-Dump Truck 285 60 600

Dump Truck 325 90 900

Concrete Truck 400 5 50

Milling Machine 450 10 100

Source: McFarland-Johnson Analysis.

Note: May include multiple pieces of same equipment within one 10-hour work day

Emission amounts are directly related to the horsepower (hp), therefore, several sources including

manufacturers’ data and the AED Green Book Compilation of Nationally Averaged Rental Rates &

Model Specifications for Construction Equipment was used to estimate hp for each type of

equipment used. Engine hp varies according to the engine size, make, model, and year of

manufacture; therefore, assumptions were based on the project’s dimensions and industry

generalizations. By assuming a ten hour workday, it was estimated each piece of equipment would

be used for a certain number of days and hours.

The EPA Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine Modeling – Compression-

Ignition Report No. NR-009C (CIR) was used to determine emission factors for many types of

equipment. The equipment list was taken from CIR Table F6. Emission testing has not been

completed for each type of equipment; therefore, Table F6 was also used to assess each equipment

type’s emission factor by designating them as backhoe, excavator, or crawler dozer type emission.

Table F6 designated the paver, roller, water truck, milling machine, and bulldozer as having crawler

dozer type emissions, the backhoe was designated as a backhoe, and the excavator was categorized

as an excavator. The emission factors for the on-road trucks, the end-dump and paint trucks, were

found separately in the EPA Emissions Standards Reference Guide for Heavy-Duty Highway

Compression-Ignition Engines and Urban Buses – Exhaust Emissions Standards. The EPA Emissions

Standards Reference Guide for Heavy-Duty Highway Compression-Ignition Engines and Urban Buses



– Exhaust Emissions Standards provides the regulated emissions standards for VOC/HC, NOx, PM,

and CO. The emission standards calculated use the 2004 factors without new standard engines

because they were higher than the 2010 factors and would subsequently develop a worst-case

emission value. Construction equipment emissions factors utilized in this assessment are available

in Table 5Table 5Table 5Table 5----2222.

Table 5Table 5Table 5Table 5----2222: Construction Emission Usage Summary: Construction Emission Usage Summary: Construction Emission Usage Summary: Construction Emission Usage Summary

PollutantPollutantPollutantPollutant Representative EquipmentRepresentative EquipmentRepresentative EquipmentRepresentative Equipment Emissions Factor Emissions Factor Emissions Factor Emissions Factor

((g/(hp*hr))((g/(hp*hr))((g/(hp*hr))((g/(hp*hr))

Exc

avat

or

Exc

avat

or

Exc

avat

or

Exc

avat

or

VOC/HC

John Deere 6101 (average

of three tests)

0.67

NOx 0.40

CO 4.92

PM 0.171

Cra

wle

r D

oze

rC

raw

ler

Do

zer

Cra

wle

r D

oze

rC

raw

ler

Do

zer VOC/HC

Consolidated Diesel 4039

(2) 1.22

NOx John Deere 4039 (3) 11.7

CO Caterpillar 3116 (2) 7.3

PM Consolidated Diesel 6TA-

830 (2) 0.805

Bac

kho

e L

oad

er

Bac

kho

e L

oad

er

Bac

kho

e L

oad

er

Bac

kho

e L

oad

er VOC/HC

Consolidated Diesel 4039

(2) 2.89

NOx John Deere 7076 (2) 14.35

CO Consolidated Diesel 6TA-

830 (2)

9.86

PM 1.698

On

On

On

On

-- -- Ro

ad T

ruck

sR

oad

Tru

cks

Ro

ad T

ruck

sR

oad

Tru

cks VOC/HC

2004 Emissions Factors

0.50

NOx 2.00

CO 15.5

PM 0.10

Source: EPA Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine Modeling –

Compression-Ignition Report No. NR-009C (CIR) 2004, EPA Emission Standards Reference Guide

(Heavy-Duty Highway Compression-Ignition Engines and Urban Buses – Exhaust Emission

Standards).

The equation below was used to determine the amount of pollutant emitted for each piece of

equipment.



Tons HC / NOx / CO / PM emitted = (emission factor HC/NOx/CO/PM g/(hp*hr)) * hp * length of

use (hours) * 0.00000110231 (grams to tons conversion factor)

This total amounts of 1.32 tons of HC, 9.15 tons of NOx, 13.10 tons of CO, and 0.69 tons of PM

emitted due to activities associated with this project. This assessment assumes that all

construction efforts would occur concurrently as opposed to construction occurring over several

phases over several years. For comparison, the total construction emissions for each pollutant

type are compared to the de minimis thresholds set for nonattainment areas inside of the ozone

transport region. As shown in Table 5-3, emissions of HC, NOx, and CO do not exceed the de

minimis threshold.

Construction contractors would be required to use properly maintained and operated

construction equipment and use tarp covers on trucks transporting refuse and construction

materials to and from the project site. These best management practices would minimize any air

quality effects associated with construction of the project.

As noted previously, Clinton County is not located within a non-attainment or maintenance area

per the EPA Green Book for meeting the National Air Quality Standards as of June 2017. This

project is not of a magnitude that would jeopardize attainment status.

In addition, the Proposed Action has been considered within the context of Greenhouse Gas

(GHG) Emissions based upon FAA Order 1050.1F. See Section 5.4 for further discussion of GHGs

and climate.

Table 5Table 5Table 5Table 5----3333: Construction Emissions Totals: Construction Emissions Totals: Construction Emissions Totals: Construction Emissions Totals

EquipmentEquipmentEquipmentEquipment HorsepowerHorsepowerHorsepowerHorsepower Total Total Total Total

HoursHoursHoursHours

Emission Factor (g/(hp*hr))Emission Factor (g/(hp*hr))Emission Factor (g/(hp*hr))Emission Factor (g/(hp*hr)) Total Emissions Total Emissions Total Emissions Total Emissions

(tons)(tons)(tons)(tons)

VOC/VOC/VOC/VOC/HCHCHCHC NOxNOxNOxNOx COCOCOCO PMPMPMPM VOC/VOC/VOC/VOC/HCHCHCHC NOxNOxNOxNOx COCOCOCO PMPMPMPM

Excavator 380 420 0.67 4.92 0.40 0.17 0.12 0.87 0.07 0.03

Backhoe 128 440 2.89 14.35 9.86 1.70 0.18 0.89 0.61 0.11

Bulldozer 175 490 1.22 11.70 7.30 0.81 0.12 1.11 0.69 0.08

Skid Steer 95 800 2.89 14.35 9.86 1.70 0.24 1.20 0.83 0.14

Roller 137 920 1.22 11.70 7.30 0.81 0.17 1.63 1.01 0.11

Paver 225 80 1.22 11.70 7.30 0.81 0.02 0.23 0.14 0.02

Water

Truck 250 650 1.22 11.70 7.30 0.81 0.22 2.10 1.31 0.14

End-Dump

Truck 285 500 0.50 2.00 15.50 0.10 0.08 0.31 2.43 0.02

Dump

Truck 325 3,110 0.50 2.00 15.50 0.10 0.56 2.23 17.27 0.11

Concrete

Truck 400 50 0.50 2.00 15.50 0.10 0.01 0.04 0.34 0.00



EquipmentEquipmentEquipmentEquipment HorsepowerHorsepowerHorsepowerHorsepower Total Total Total Total

HoursHoursHoursHours

Emission Factor (g/(hp*hr))Emission Factor (g/(hp*hr))Emission Factor (g/(hp*hr))Emission Factor (g/(hp*hr)) Total Emissions Total Emissions Total Emissions Total Emissions

(tons)(tons)(tons)(tons)

VOC/VOC/VOC/VOC/HCHCHCHC NOxNOxNOxNOx COCOCOCO PMPMPMPM VOC/VOC/VOC/VOC/HCHCHCHC NOxNOxNOxNOx COCOCOCO PMPMPMPM

Trenching

Machine 95 90 1.22 11.70 7.30 0.81 0.01 0.11 0.07 0.01

Milling

Machine 450 10 1.22 11.70 7.30 0.81 0.01 0.06 0.04 0.00

Total Construction Emissions:Total Construction Emissions:Total Construction Emissions:Total Construction Emissions: 1.731.731.731.73 10.710.710.710.7

7777 24.8224.8224.8224.82 0.770.770.770.77

De Minimis Threshold (Tons/Year)De Minimis Threshold (Tons/Year)De Minimis Threshold (Tons/Year)De Minimis Threshold (Tons/Year) 50505050 100100100100 100100100100 100100100100

Source: EPA Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for Nonroad Engine Modeling –

Compression-Ignition Report No. NR-009C (CIR) 2004, EPA Emission Standards Reference Guide

(Heavy-Duty Highway Compression-Ignition Engines and Urban Buses – Exhaust Emission

Standards).

Based on the above assessment, no significant impacts to air quality are expected to result from

this project.

5.3.5.3.5.3.5.3. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCESBIOLOGICAL RESOURCESBIOLOGICAL RESOURCESBIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

The majority of the project area consists of maintained grassland with a few evergreen trees.

This habitat is demonstrably secure and abundant in the vicinity of the project area and within

New York State. Additionally, any wildlife that may use the project area is expected to readily

disperse to adjacent properties.

Based on consultation with the NYSDEC NYNHP, a significant natural community, rich sloping fen,

is located within 0.5 mile of the project site. The fen is located west of the Airport entrance and

on the south side of NYS Route 22. According to NYNHP, the fen has been disturbed by past

filling activities and construction of the adjacent road and airport runway lights. The significant

natural community is not located within the project area nor is it located within the drainage

area of the project, and therefore it will not be affected.

The USFWS indicated that the federally listed endangered Indiana bat, threatened NLEB, and

migratory birds, including the delisted bald eagle may be found in Clinton County. Based on

correspondence with the USFWS on previous environmental studies at the Airport, Indiana bats

are not likely to occur within the vicinity of the Airport. The proposed project includes the

removal of two 20-inch pine (Pinus spp.) trees. Based on the amount of tree removal associated

with the project and the abundant availability of more suitable habitat in the vicinity of the

project area, the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect the Indiana or northern long-

eared bats.

Executive Order 13112 requires Federal Agencies to consider and take measures to control the

spread of invasive species. The project area is largely composed of mowed grass and paved

area. If necessary, the spread of invasive species will be controlled through implementation of

Best Management Practices.



The project area consists of asphalt and maintained grassland with a few evergreen trees.

Mowed grassland is prevalent on and near the project area and loss of those areas is not

considered to be significant.

Based on the aforementioned information, the project will have no significant effect on any state

or federally-listed threatened or endangered species, critical habitat, or significant ecological

communities.

5.4.5.4.5.4.5.4. CLIMATECLIMATECLIMATECLIMATE

Climate change is a global phenomenon that has been attributed to increasing concentrations of

GHGs in the atmosphere. GHGs include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide

(N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).

The Proposed Action would create minor additional vehicle traffic but would decrease the amount

of travel between the Airport and hotels located 5 miles from the Airport. The additional traffic

from the hotel and restaurant development are not expected to affect the level of service on NYS

Route 22 (Crete Boulevard) and potential traffic delays will be minimal. Therefore, any potential

increase in emissions of GHGs would be considered negligible in comparison with U.S. annual

emissions and therefore would not have a significant impact on global climate change.

5.5.5.5.5.5.5.5. HAZARDOUS MATERIALSHAZARDOUS MATERIALSHAZARDOUS MATERIALSHAZARDOUS MATERIALS

A hazardous or contaminated environmental condition is the presence or likely presence of any

hazardous substances or petroleum products (including products currently in compliance with

applicable regulations) on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past

release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into

structures on the property or into the ground, ground water, or surface water of the property.

The hazardous waste and contaminated materials screening conducted for the project area

included a review of available documentation related to the prior U.S. Air Force base, historical

topographical maps, aerial photographs, and USEPA and NYSDEC environmental databases files.

In addition, a visual inspection of the project area was conducted during site walkovers by

McFarland Johnson in April 2017.

The former Plattsburgh Air Force Base is an USEPA Superfund site (USEPA ID#: NY4571924774)

listed on the National Priorities List (NPL). Contaminants of concern include, but are not limited

to, chlorinated solvents, petroleum compounds, metals, metalloids, pesticides, and

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The USAF remains actively involved in remedial measures and

monitoring at the former base. Cleanup actions are still ongoing, including groundwater

treatment. All current cleanup areas are located south and downgradient of the project area.

According to the USEPA superfund website for the Plattsburgh Air Force Base, “previous and

ongoing investigation and cleanup efforts at the base protect human health and the

environment in a number of ways. All areas of contamination have either already been cleaned

up or have cleanup remedies (including institutional controls) in place.” The USEPA website can

be found here:

https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/Cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0202439&msspp=med



In addition, the USAF Alert Facility was previously located in the same location as the proposed

hotel. The Alert Facility was closed in 1995 and subsequently removed in 2010. The USEPA lists

the abandoned Alert Facility as a Large Quantity Generator under the federal Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (ID# NYR000171033) with no violations.

Review of the USAF Land Use Controls/Institutional Controls – 2010 Site Inspections Report

(September 2010) indicates that there are no land use or institutional controls in place in the

area of the proposed project.

A search of available environmental records was conducted by Environmental Data Resources,

Inc. (EDR) on June 15, 2017. The EDR report indicated four RCRA generator sites, of which 3 are

inactive. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) at the Airport is listed as a RCRA

Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator. The EDR report indicated five facilities with spill

reports involving chemical or petroleum releases occurring within one mile of the center of the

project area. The EDR report indicated the Airport Terminal area, which is upgradient of the

project area, had four spills, all of which were contained and did not reach surface waters. All

reported spills were reported as cleaned up and closed.

The Airport operates under a NYSDEC Stormwater Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(SPDES) Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) for Stormwater Discharges from Industrial Activity

(Permit ID NY0217905) and a Spill Prevention Countermeasure Control Plan (SPCC Plan). Both

the MSGP and SPCC Plan help the facility to prevent discharges of pollutants, including oil, into

navigable waters or adjoining shorelines.

Review of the available historical U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographical maps (1894, 1906,

1939, 1941, 1943, 1956, 1966, 1985, and 2013) and aerial photographs of the site (1939, 1964,

1985, 1994, 2006, 2008, 2009, and 2011) indicated that the project area and surrounding area

have been developed over the years for military air force base uses and current day Airport uses.

The existing parking area was associated with the Alert Facility and has been in place since at

least the early 1960s when the Alert Facility was constructed.

No suspected hazardous wastes or contaminated materials were identified within or adjacent to

the project area during the course of the preliminary hazardous waste and contaminated

materials screening of the project area. Although the potential risk for involvement with

documented or undocumented inactive hazardous waste or contaminated materials is

considered to be unlikely, if hazardous materials are encountered during project construction,

appropriate state and federal agencies would be notified and the material would be disposed of

in accordance with applicable regulations. Based on the above, the Proposed Action is not

expected to have significant impacts from hazardous wastes.

5.5.1.5.5.1.5.5.1.5.5.1. Solid WasteSolid WasteSolid WasteSolid Waste

In general, the proposed hotel and restaurant would trigger a corresponding increase in the

quantity of refuse generated. According to estimates, approximately two lbs./room/day would

be generated by the proposed hotel operations and one lb./seat/day would be generated by the

proposed restaurant operations.



In addition, the Proposed Action is expected to create some construction and demolition waste

during the construction. The contractor would be responsible for disposal and reuse in

accordance with all applicable local, state, and federal rules and regulations.

Solid waste removal services are provided to PBG by Casella. Casella hauls the waste by truck for

disposal at the Clinton County Landfill, which is also operated by Casella. The Clinton County

Landfill has ample capacity to accommodate the waste disposal needs of the hotel and

restaurant.

5.6.5.6.5.6.5.6. LAND USELAND USELAND USELAND USE

Airport development projects have the potential to cause off-airport land use impacts. The

compatibility of existing and planned land uses in the vicinity of an airport is usually associated

with the extent of an airport’s noise impacts. However, it can also be associated with disruptions

of the surrounding community, residential or business relocations, changes in vehicular traffic

patterns, induced socioeconomic effects, and even off-airport effects from on-airport facilities

such as lighting units, which are addressed in Sections 5.11 and 5.12. Noise effects are regulated

under 49 U.S. Code Section 47501, et seq. (formerly the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act

of 1979) and addressed in Section 5.11. According to the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of

1982 (section 511(a) (5)), the EA shall include documentation that demonstrates that the Airport

sponsor has, to the extent reasonable, taken the appropriate measures to place restrictions on

the use of land, adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of the Airport, to ensure that existing

and planned land uses would remain compatible with normal airport operations, including the

landings and takeoffs of aircraft.

In planning future airport developments, it is important to identify early in the planning process

existing and planned land uses that could affect or be affected by the Airport development

projects to avoid or minimize effects that would disrupt land use compatibility with the Airport.

Sensitive land uses generally include residences, schools, religious institutions, parks and

recreation areas, and other public places. Potential impacts to these sensitive receptors include

noise generated by aircraft and ground traffic and safety hazards. Other potentially incompatible

land uses near airports include facilities that generate high levels of electrical transmissions or

bright lights, wildlife habitat that attracts birds and other animals with the potential to interfere

with airport operations, and tall structures or other objects obstructing navigable airspace.

The project area is located in a generally flat area on an 18-acre parcel owned by Clinton County

that was formerly the site of the PAFB Alert Facility. The 18-acre parcel consists of maintained

grass, asphalt road (Lemay Drive), asphalt parking areas, vacant building, asphalt roadway

associated with the demolished PAFB Alert Facility, and vacant land. Clinton County has a

longstanding desire for a hotel development on the project site and has discussed this possibility

publicly.

The project area is located in the city of Plattsburgh and borders the town of Plattsburgh to the

west and further to the south. The city of Plattsburgh has existing zoning ordinances, land use

codes, Comprehensive Plan, and a Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. In addition, the city

is in the process of developing a Strategic Plan to establish a long-term vision and goals for the

city of Plattsburgh.



The land use classification for the project area is Vacant Land in Industrial Areas and Industrial

for zoning purposes. Properties east of the Airport within the city of Plattsburgh are zoned as

Industrial. Properties west and south of the project area are zoned by the town of Plattsburgh as

A1 – Airport 1 District, which involves less intensive manufacturing and related uses associated

with Airport development than the Airport 2 District.

The Proposed Action is compatible with the city’s planning codes and guidelines, with the

exception of the city zoning code for the hotel use. Typically, a special permit would be required

for a hotel in an Industrial zoned area. However, the hotel is being considered an “Airport Hotel”

that would primarily serve Airport users and therefore, would align with the city’s code.

Multiple Airport-related development projects have been completed recently, including Airport

fuel farm relocation, Airport Terminal expansion, and expansion of associated Airport user

parking lots. Future projects in the surrounding area consists of projects associated with the New

York UAEDR program, including rehabilitation of the Airport parking lot, building demolitions,

hangar and building renovations, construction of 5,000 and 15,000 square foot buildings. In

addition, a 2,500-square foot public transportation building will be constructed immediately

south of the Proposed Action project area.

The project will have no impact on aircraft operations therefore land use compatibility related to

aircraft noise is not a concern.

Overall, no significant impact to land use compatibility is anticipated with implementation of the

Proposed Action.

5.7.5.7.5.7.5.7. NATURAL RESOURCES ANNATURAL RESOURCES ANNATURAL RESOURCES ANNATURAL RESOURCES AND ENERGY SUPPLYD ENERGY SUPPLYD ENERGY SUPPLYD ENERGY SUPPLY

Natural gas and electric services are provided to the Airport through New York State Electric and

Gas (NYSEG). Water is provided by the town of Plattsburgh’s water system. The source of water

for the town of Plattsburgh is a series of five deep wells. Sewer service is also provided by the

town of Plattsburgh. Sewage is treated at the city of Plattsburgh’s Water Pollution Control Plant,

which discharges to the Saranac River. Coordination with utility companies is ongoing and it is

expected that the utilities have the capacity to accommodate the proposed hotel and restaurant.

Construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed project will use readily available

materials and will not exceed available natural resource or energy supplies.

5.8.5.8.5.8.5.8. NOISENOISENOISENOISE

Aircraft noise emissions, inherent to the operation of an airport, can adversely impact land use

compatibility between an airport and surrounding properties, particularly in the presence of

noise-sensitive receptors. Residences, places of worship, hospitals, schools, parks, and

amphitheaters are receptors that are sensitive to elevated noise levels. Therefore, it is important

to predict any change in noise levels associated with airport development and to determine the

significance, if any, of the impact to noise sensitive land uses. Then, abatement measures can be

incorporated into airport development plans to avoid or minimize the impacts.



The project does not propose to change the airport’s aircraft fleet mix or operational

characteristics. The proposed hotel and restaurant will result in a small increase of vehicular

traffic. Therefore, a noise analysis per the requirements of FAA Advisory Circular 5050.4B and

FAA Order 1050.1F is not required for the proposed project. As a result, no impacts due to

aircraft noise are expected.

5.8.1.5.8.1.5.8.1.5.8.1. Noise Noise Noise Noise Construction ImpactsConstruction ImpactsConstruction ImpactsConstruction Impacts

Temporary noise effects would result from construction activities associated with the Proposed

Action and would include noise generated from heavy equipment, truck traffic, and other

construction activity. Construction activities would be carried out during normal daylight hours.

Project construction would be phased depending on a hotel/restaurant developer commitment.

Phase I would include the construction of the access road from NYS Route 22 to the hotel

western parking area, the hotel western parking area, and the hotel water and sanitary sewer

utilities extensions. Construction of Phase I is expected to begin in Spring 2018 and be completed

by Fall 2018. Construction of the remaining development is anticipated to begin within the next

two years depending on developer commitment.

The nearest residential noise receptors to the proposed project is located east of the project

site, south of NYS Route 22, approximately 1,000 feet from the proposed access road and NYS

Route 22 intersection. The nearest business receptor, an industrial manufacturing company,

Lakeside Container Corporation, is located approximately 250 feet south of the site. Construction

activities would occur during daylight hours and may be audible from nearby residences and

businesses. Construction noise would be intermittent, depend on the location and functions of

the equipment, and would be temporary and short-term in duration. Construction contract

documents would require construction equipment to be properly equipped and maintained to

minimize off-site construction noise impacts.

Based on this analysis, it can be concluded that the Proposed Action would not result in any

significant noise impacts during any phases of construction.

5.9.5.9.5.9.5.9. SOCIOECONOMIC, ENVIRSOCIOECONOMIC, ENVIRSOCIOECONOMIC, ENVIRSOCIOECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE, ANONMENTAL JUSTICE, ANONMENTAL JUSTICE, ANONMENTAL JUSTICE, AND CHILDREN’S HEALTH D CHILDREN’S HEALTH D CHILDREN’S HEALTH D CHILDREN’S HEALTH AND SAFETY RISKSAND SAFETY RISKSAND SAFETY RISKSAND SAFETY RISKS

Aviation infrastructure projects have the potential to directly or indirectly affect socioeconomic

conditions in surrounding communities. The CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1500 require that the

“human environment” be addressed concerning the relationship of people with their natural and

physical environments. These effects may include, but are not necessarily limited to, shifts in

populations, incomes, and growth patterns; public service demands; business and economic

activity; creating a notable change in employment; and disruption to established neighborhoods.

Federal regulations at 40 CFR 1508.27(b) require Federal agencies to consider any significant

effects from a project due to its intensity and context. Most adverse socioeconomic impacts that

are associated with aviation infrastructure result in the disruption of established neighborhoods

or transportation patterns. These changes can require alterations to public services including fire

and police protection, education and utility services, businesses, or employment opportunities.

This section describes potential changes to local industry, employment, income, and the tax

base.



5.9.1.5.9.1.5.9.1.5.9.1. Industry, Employment, and IncomeIndustry, Employment, and IncomeIndustry, Employment, and IncomeIndustry, Employment, and Income

According to the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS), the Clinton County

population was 81,685 at the end of 2015. By April 2017, the average unemployment rate was

4.3 percent in New York State and nationally. Overall unemployment in Clinton County was

higher than the state or national average for April 2017, at 5.6 percent.

In 2015, the median household income for Clinton County was $49,930, compared to $59,269

for the State of New York, and nationally was $53,889. The average household income in Clinton

County is lower than both the state median and the national average.

According to the census data, as a whole, Clinton County population has remained steady for the

past ten years. The area supports a slightly lower percentage of adults in the working force

compared to the state and national percentage. The largest portion of working adults in Clinton

County is considered management or professionals. The next largest portion of the employed is

in sales or office occupations. The largest industry listed for the County consists of education,

health care, and social assistance.

The proposed project is expected to generate over 180 jobs for the construction period and over

100 jobs for the hotel and restaurant operation. Therefore, the proposed project would be

beneficial to the community.

5.9.2.5.9.2.5.9.2.5.9.2. Community Tax BaseCommunity Tax BaseCommunity Tax BaseCommunity Tax Base

The Proposed Action would take place on County-owned property on land designated for non-

aviation use; therefore, there would be no loss of community tax base as a result of the

proposed project.

5.9.3.5.9.3.5.9.3.5.9.3. Environmental JusticeEnvironmental JusticeEnvironmental JusticeEnvironmental Justice

An environmental justice analysis considers the potential of federal actions, including those

involving federally obligated airports, to cause a disproportionate and adverse effect upon low-

income or minority populations. Physically, the project area is located within the city of

Plattsburgh with the town of Plattsburgh border located immediately to the west and south. A

majority of the Airport is located within the town of Plattsburgh. In addition, the project

proposes connections to utilities owned and/or operated by the town of Plattsburgh. Therefore,

the town and city of Plattsburgh is considered for the discussion of potential impacts that the

Proposed Action could have on the community.

As shown in Table 5Table 5Table 5Table 5----4444, the U.S. Census American Factfinder 2011-2015 five-year estimates

recorded the city of Plattsburgh having a total population of 19,845, with 88.6 percent white and

25.3 percent below the poverty threshold. The percentage of residents who classify themselves

as white is 16 percent above the national average and 3.3 percent lower than all of Clinton

County. When considering median household income, the median in the city of Plattsburgh is

$37,346, which is approximately $16,500 below the national median household income, and

approximately $12,600 below the county median household income. The demographics for the

town of Plattsburgh is more in line with Clinton County than that of the city of Plattsburgh.



The NYSDEC Environmental Justice Preliminary Mapping showing the locations of such minority

population for the 2000 U.S. Census was reviewed. The mapping identified areas of potential

concern in the vicinity of the project area for populations that are potentially sensitive to

environmental justice.

Table 5Table 5Table 5Table 5----4444: Demographic Profile Surrounding the : Demographic Profile Surrounding the : Demographic Profile Surrounding the : Demographic Profile Surrounding the Project AreaProject AreaProject AreaProject Area

Census CategoryCensus CategoryCensus CategoryCensus Category Town of Town of Town of Town of

PlattsburghPlattsburghPlattsburghPlattsburgh City of PlattsburghCity of PlattsburghCity of PlattsburghCity of Plattsburgh ClintonClintonClintonClinton CountyCountyCountyCounty

Total Population 11,847 19,845 81,685

White Population 94.6% 88.6% 91.5%

Minority Population 5.4% 11.4% 8.5%

Population Under Age 5 5.9% 3.5% 4.8%

Population Age 65 & Older 17.4% 14.7% 14.7%

Individuals Below Poverty Level 12.8% 25.3% 16.5%

Median Household Income $53,980 $37,346 $49,930

Source: U.S. Census American Factfinder, 2011-2015 5-Year Estimates.

The project area is surrounded by commercial and industrial development and therefore, the

environmental justice areas are not immediately within or adjacent to the project area and no

high and adverse effects are anticipated from the project. Therefore, it can be concluded that

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects are not anticipated

to occur among minority or low-income populations as a result of the Proposed Action.

5.9.4.5.9.4.5.9.4.5.9.4. Children’s Health and Safety RisksChildren’s Health and Safety RisksChildren’s Health and Safety RisksChildren’s Health and Safety Risks

Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks,

defines the risks to children’s safety that are attributable to products or substances that the child

is likely to touch or ingest including the air we breathe, the food we eat, the water we drink or

use for recreation, and the soil we use to grow food. The proposed alternatives have been

evaluated for their potential to have a disproportionate effect on children's environmental

health or safety. It has been concluded that the Proposed Action is not of the nature or

magnitude to have an adverse effect upon the health and safety of children. Therefore,

mitigation is not proposed.

5.9.5.5.9.5.5.9.5.5.9.5. TrafTrafTrafTrafficficficfic

Construction of the proposed project would occur on County-owned property, with the

exception of the right of way for NYS Route 22 for the site development access road. A traffic

analysis was conducted to determine if the proposed project would impact traffic patterns or

level of service of roads and its surrounding community. Details of the traffic analysis can be

found in the Traffic Impact Letter of Findings, dated August 31, 2017, in Appendix CAppendix CAppendix CAppendix C.

The traffic analysis focused on the future traffic conditions associated with the construction of

access road and full build out of the proposed hotel and restaurant site. The proposed access



road and NYS Route 22 intersection would be controlled by a “Stop” sign. The analysis

determined that the intersection would operate at an overall ‘A’1 Level of Service (LOS) for all

peak periods with all individual movements operating at an acceptable LOS ‘C’ or better, with no

significant delays associated with NYS Route 22 traffic. The amount of traffic generated by the

hotel and restaurant was determined to be negligible in respect to the existing traffic on NYS

Route 22. Only minimal delays would be present for vehicles exiting the proposed site.

Therefore, based on the traffic analysis findings, any impacts to traffic as a result of the Proposed

Action are expected to be negligible and degradation of the LOS is not anticipated.

5.9.6.5.9.6.5.9.6.5.9.6. ConclusionConclusionConclusionConclusion

No relocation of residences or businesses is proposed. The proposed projects are expected to

stimulate the local economy, by creating construction jobs and demand for readily available

construction materials, and operational jobs, resulting in increased tax revenue to the

community. The project would not have any disproportionate effects on minority and low

income populations and would not adversely affect health and safety of children.

Overall, the proposed project is not of the size or nature to cause an increase in public service

demands or to cause population shifts. Impacts to the surrounding community are not

anticipated.

5.10.5.10.5.10.5.10. LIGHLIGHLIGHLIGHT EMISSIONS AND VISUT EMISSIONS AND VISUT EMISSIONS AND VISUT EMISSIONS AND VISUAL EFFECTSAL EFFECTSAL EFFECTSAL EFFECTS

There are no special purpose laws, permits, or certificates for light emissions or their visual

effects. However, light emissions or resulting visual effects from any element of a Proposed

Action has the potential to affect nearby residential areas or properties covered under Section

4(f) of the USDOT Act, the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, and Section 106 of the

National Historic Preservation Act.

The FAA is required to consider the potential for lighting associated with a proposed

development action to become an annoyance to people in the vicinity or interfere with their

normal activities. Because most air navigational systems and other airport development actions

produce relatively low levels of light intensity compared to background levels, adverse effects on

human activity or the use or characteristics of protected properties, when present, are unlikely.

The Proposed Action would increase the amount of lighting necessary for the hotel, restaurant,

and associated parking areas. The proposed project would include the installment of standard

lighting for the parking areas and typical hotel and restaurant exterior building lighting. Parking

and building lighting would be consistent with adjacent uses.

In general, the hotel/restaurant development will be located in an area with community service

(Airport), commercial, and industrial land uses. The proposed project is adjacent to the Airport

1 LOS ‘A’ for an unsignalized intersection has an average vehicle delay of ≤10 seconds. LOS ‘C’ has

an average of 15-25 second delay.



Terminal and Airport parking lots which are well lit for security purposes. There are no

residences located in close proximity to the proposed hotel and restaurant. The nearest

residences are located on Wall Street and Sara Court, approximately 0.25-mile east of the

project site. Although there would be a visual change in the appearance of the project area, no

lighting impacts are anticipated. The proposed lighting would be consistent with the surrounding

environment and would not disrupt normal activities.

Based on the above, no significant visual impacts would result from the proposed project.

5.11.5.11.5.11.5.11. WATER RESOURCESWATER RESOURCESWATER RESOURCESWATER RESOURCES

The EA must demonstrate that compliance with the State’s water quality standards and federal,

state, and local permit requirements can be achieved. Design considerations, controls during

construction, and other mitigation measures can be implemented to avoid significant impacts to

water quality. If the EA and appropriate consultation, with regulating and permitting agencies,

demonstrates that water quality standards can be met (i.e., that no special water problem exists

and there is no indication of anticipated permit difficulty), it may be assumed that the proposed

project would have no significant impact on water quality. The EA shall reflect the results of

consultation with regulating and permitting agencies and include a list of permits that would be

required by the project.

Overall, the primary concern regarding water quality is during the construction phase. See

Section 5.11.3 for a discussion of potential water quality impacts during the construction phase.

5.11.1.5.11.1.5.11.1.5.11.1. Surface WaterSurface WaterSurface WaterSurface Water

In general, the majority of surface water on the project site drains to existing stormwater

management features, which discharge to the north to the Saranac River. No streams or other

surface waters were identified within the project area.

The project site and surrounding area consists of very sandy soils. Stormwater management

features are in place on and in the vicinity of the project site from the former PAFB facilities and

the adjacent Airport parking lots.

Pursuant to Section 402 of the CWA, stormwater discharges from certain construction activities

are unlawful unless they are authorized by a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) permit or a similar state permitting program. New York’s SPDES is a NPDES approved

program administered by the NYSDEC, with permits issued in accordance with the State’s ECL.

The SPDES permit requires that the operator covered under the permit implement a Stormwater

Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) developed specifically for the project area. As part of the

SWPPP, all SPDES permit sites must develop an Erosion and Sediment Control plan to control

stormwater discharge during construction, through the implementation of Best Management

Practices (BMPs). Following development of the SWPPP, a Notice of Intent is filed with the

NYSDEC to obtain permit coverage.

The proposed project would result in an approximate net increase of 1.90 acres of impervious

areas, thus stormwater runoff must be addressed. The proposed project would disturb more

than one acre of land and therefore, would require a SPDES permit. The project would be



designed in accordance with the current SPDES permit, NYSDEC New York State Standards and

Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control, and the New York State Stormwater

Management Design Manual, therefore appropriate BMPs would address potential impacts to

water quality from stormwater runoff. Also, temporary erosion and sediment controls would be

implemented to avoid impacts to water quality during the construction of the Proposed Action.

Post-construction stormwater management practices would be required to enhance water

quality and provide water quantity control through peak flow attenuation. The Proposed Action

would result in the conversion of approximately 3.30 acres of mowed grass to impervious

surfaces. However, approximately 1.50 acres of existing impervious surface would be converted

to landscaped and grass areas. To meet the goal of no-net increase in peak stormwater runoff

from pre-project conditions, BMPs must compensate for the increase in runoff resulting from

additional impervious surfaces. Acceptable post-construction stormwater management practices

include: storage practices such as stormwater ponds and extended-detention outlet structures,

stormwater wetlands, filtration practices such as grassed swales and filter strips, open channel

practices, and infiltration practices such as infiltration basins and infiltration trenches. The

selected BMPs would be incorporated into the final design to control water quality and quantity

and fulfill the peak flow attenuation requirements of the permit. Likewise, BMPs determined

feasible for the site would be designed as part of the SWPPP, which would be implemented

during construction and properly maintained thereafter, to ensure optimal performance in

meeting water quality standards. The BMPs, proposed for the site, would be designed to

accommodate the water quality volume. It is inherent in the design of BMPs that by meeting the

water quality volume requirements, a project would meet water quality objectives by default.

The stormwater management plan would comply with FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5200-33B,

Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or Near Airports. Based on the SWPPP developed for the

Airport and the application of proper BMPs, no difficulty is expected in obtaining a stormwater

permit.

The primary impact to surface water quality from the Proposed Action would be increased runoff

resulting from the expansion of impervious surfaces. Therefore, drainage improvements and

associated BMPs would be installed to manage stormwater runoff.

Due to the implementation of a SWPPP during the construction phase and proper stormwater

management during the operational phase, no significant impacts to water quality are expected

to result from the Proposed Action during the operation or construction phases.

5.11.2.5.11.2.5.11.2.5.11.2. GroundwaterGroundwaterGroundwaterGroundwater

The project area does not rest over an USEPA designated Sole Source Aquifer, or NYSDEC

designated Primary or Principal Aquifer. This project would not have a significant impact to a

public drinking water supply.

Overall, the Proposed Action is not expected to cause any significant impacts to groundwater

quality in the project area during the operation or construction phases of the project.



5.11.3.5.11.3.5.11.3.5.11.3. Water Quality Construction ImpactsWater Quality Construction ImpactsWater Quality Construction ImpactsWater Quality Construction Impacts

Earth disturbance during construction can negatively affect water quality when sediment laden

runoff is not prevented from leaving the construction site. Turbidity is the water quality

parameter of greatest concern during the construction period. NYSDEC requires that there be no

increase in visible turbidity when compared to natural conditions. Water quality impacts during

the construction period would be minimized through the use of BMPs including appropriate

erosion and sedimentation control measures tailored to specific site conditions.

Greater than one acre of disturbance would occur during the construction phase; therefore, a

current NYSDEC SPDES for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity General Permit

would be required. Permit conditions and approvals would ensure the proposed activities would

not violate water quality standards.

5.12.5.12.5.12.5.12. CUMULATIVE IMPACTSCUMULATIVE IMPACTSCUMULATIVE IMPACTSCUMULATIVE IMPACTS

In determining the significance of the impacts associated with the Proposed Action, it is also

necessary to consider the overall cumulative impact of projects detailed in the EA and the

consequences of other related projects. CEQ regulations, at 40 CFR 1508.7, define cumulative

effects as the impact on the environment which result from the incremental impact of the action

when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. According to the

FAA, cumulative impacts are defined as “the impact on the environment which results from the

incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable

future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such

other actions”. The geographic area of concern for this analysis is generally the project area and

remaining Airport property. For some resources, such as socioeconomics, impacts may extend

further and the geographic area of concern is larger. The time period for cumulative effects

analysis is the cycle during which the project is expected to affect a resource, ecosystem, or

human community.

Recently completed projects at the Airport have included Airport fuel farm relocation, Airport

Terminal expansion, and expansion of associated Airport user parking lots. Recently completed

projects have been focused around improvements to the Airport Terminal and parking area. Any

impacts to environmental resources from these past projects have been addressed in approved

environmental documents and permits, as necessary.

Construction of the following projects are planned to occur over the next two years at PBG:

rehabilitation of Airport Terminal parking, public transportation facility, manufacturing facility,

air cargo regional distribution center (RDC), General Aviation (GA) U.S. Customs and Border

Protection (CBP) facility, eight building demolitions and several building renovations. Traffic

impacts from the proposed projects are anticipated to be negligible; a traffic analysis for the new

manufacturing facility, air cargo RDC, and the GA CBP facility has determined that there will be

minimal impacts and degradation of the LOS is not anticipated. Given that the project areas

have been developed in the past and that tree clearing will be limited to the period between

October 1 and March 31, no impacts to threatened/endangered species and migratory birds are

anticipated. There are no waters of the United States on or within the immediate vicinity of the

project areas. The proposed projects will result in a total net increase of approximately 1.38



acres of new impervious surfaces at the airport; any potential water quality impacts related to

stormwater will be addressed in accordance with the NYSDEC SPDES General Permit for

Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity, current New York State Standards and

Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Controls, and current New York State Stormwater

Management Design Manual, as applicable. There will be a slight increase in aircraft operations

as a result of the air cargo RDC and GA CBP projects; however, the results of the noise screening

determined that there would be no significant impact over noise sensitive areas as a result of the

projects and no further noise analysis was required. Air quality analysis for the proposed

projects determined that there will be minimal impacts and that the total emissions (operational

and construction) associated with the proposed projects will be below de minimis levels. In

general, minor noise and air quality impacts will occur during the construction. SHPO has

determined that no historic properties will be affected by the proposed projects.

Additionally, an approximate 9.1-acre solar array project is proposed to be constructed on the

northwestern portion of the Airport property, south of NYS Route 22 and along the western side

of the Perimeter Road. According to a Short EA prepared for the project, impacts to

environmental resources have been avoided and/or minimized and significant impacts are not

anticipated.

The environmental impacts of these future Airport projects would be analyzed in separate

environmental documents. These projects would be designed to avoid or minimize impacts to

sensitive resources on and off Airport property.

Due to the nature of the proposed projects and short construction duration, significant

cumulative impacts are not anticipated. Overall, projects in the foreseeable future are relatively

small in scale and unlikely to create notable environmental impacts.

5.13.5.13.5.13.5.13. MITIGATIONMITIGATIONMITIGATIONMITIGATION

In general, the proposed project location and design was chosen to avoid significant impacts to

environmental resources.

The proposed project was designed using BMPs to minimize environmental, social, and

economic impacts. Mitigation efforts include, but are not limited to, proper maintenance and

operation of construction equipment, utilization of tarp covers on trucks, minimization of noise

from construction equipment, utilization of a previously disturbed site, utilization of soil erosion

and sediment control measures, post-construction stormwater management, and adherence to

state and federal water quality regulations, such as the NYSDEC SPDES Construction General

Permit.

5.14.5.14.5.14.5.14. PUBLIC PARTICIPATIONPUBLIC PARTICIPATIONPUBLIC PARTICIPATIONPUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Public involvement for development of the Proposed Action and Draft EA was conducted in

accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F. The Proposed Action was discussed at numerous meetings

with Airport staff, the Plattsburgh Airbase Redevelopment Corporation (PARC), Clinton County

officials, and other stakeholders, including the city of Plattsburgh, town of Plattsburgh, NYSDOT,

USFWS, NYSDEC, and the FAA.



The NYSDOT and their project consultant, WSP, reviewed the Draft EA and provided comments

prior to the submittal to the FAA. Comments were addressed and incorporated into the Draft EA,

if applicable. The Draft EA was then reviewed by the FAA New York Airports Districts Office

Environmental Specialist. Comments received from the FAA were incorporated into the Draft EA

made available to the public for review and comment.

The Draft EA was made available for a 30-day public review and comment period. A notice of

availability of the Draft EA was published in the local newspaper, Press Republican. A copy of the

public notice affidavit is provided in Appendix EAppendix EAppendix EAppendix E. The public comment period was from October

19 to November 17, 2017. Public comments were welcomed on the Proposed Action, and the

potential economic, social, and environmental consequences as well as the project’s consistency

with the goals and objectives of the affected area’s land use or planning strategy.

There were no public comments received during the public comment period.

The above information is also provided in Appendix EAppendix EAppendix EAppendix E----1111, Public Participation, Public & Agency

Comments.





List of Preparers 6-1

6. LIST OF PREPARERS

This EA was prepared by McFarland Johnson, Inc. The following people were involved in the preparation of the document:

McFarland Johnson, Inc.

Turner Bradford, P.E. – Senior Engineer, M.E. Environmental and Water Resources Engineering (2009): University of Virginia, Charlottesville; B.S. Civil Engineering (2005): Northeastern University; B.A. Economics (1998): Colgate University. Project Involvement: MJ Client Manager. Project design development, Purpose and Need and Alternatives.

Adam J. Frosino, P.E. – Project Engineer, B.S. Civil Engineering (2006): University of Connecticut. Project Involvement: Access road and pedestrian walkway development and Traffic Impact Analysis.

Erica C. Major –Planner; M.A. Geography, Concentration in Human Geography (2007): SUNY University at Albany; B.S. Geography, Concentration in Urban & Regional Planning (2004): SUNY College at Oneonta. Project Involvement: Affected Environment analysis, and ArcGIS figures.

Aimee N. Viens Rutledge, PWS, CPESC, CPSWQ – Senior Environmentalist, B.S. Environmental Management (1999): University of Rhode Island, College of Natural Resources. Project Involvement: Project Manager, Purpose and Need, Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, Alternatives, and EA document preparation.

Zachary A. Staff, PP, AICP – Airport Planner; M.A. Geography (2007) Binghamton University. Project Involvement: Air quality analysis.

Jeffrey R. Wood, CSDP – Senior Transportation Manager; B.S. Environmental Studies (1988): SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry at Syracuse. Project Involvement: Public involvement and EA document preparation.

Gregory U. Yang, E.I.T. – Junior Engineer, B.S. Civil Engineering (2016): Oklahoma State

University. Project Involvement: Drafting support.


List of Preparers 6-2

This page intentionally left blank

Documents

Environmental Assessment Plattsburgh International …flyplattsburgh.com/data/files/PBG_Hotel Final EA_Narrative.pdf2.4. SUMMARY ... EO Executive Order ... hotel, restaurant, and associated