draft environmental assessment city of new orleans mirabeau … › media-library-data ›...

Draft Environmental Assessment

City of New Orleans

Mirabeau Water Garden Storm Water

Management and Flood Mitigation Project

FEMA-1607-DR-LA

Orleans Parish, Louisiana

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program

Project 1607-0120

December 2018 U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region VI

Louisiana Recovery Office

1500 Main Street

Baton Rouge, LA 70802

Mirabeau Water Garden Stormwater Management and Flood Mitigation Project Draft Environmental Assessment i

APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................................... III

LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................................................... III

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................................... III

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

1.1 Project Authority ...................................................................................................1 1.2 Background ...........................................................................................................1 1.3 Purpose and Need .................................................................................................5

2.0 ALTERNATIVES ........................................................................................................................... 5

Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative ..............................................................................5 Alternative 2 - Mirabeau Water Garden: Treatment Cell Storage and Permanent

Pool ...........................................................................................................6 Alternative 3 - Mirabeau Water Garden: Basin Storage Using Existing

Topography (Preferred Alternative) .........................................................8

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS ....................................................... 11

3.1 Land Use .............................................................................................................11 3.1.1 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................11 3.1.2 Existing Conditions .................................................................................12 3.1.3 Environmental Consequences .................................................................12

3.2. Geology, Soils, and Topography ........................................................................12 3.2.1 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................12 3.2.2 Existing Conditions .................................................................................13 3.2.3 Environmental Consequences .................................................................15

3.3 Water Quality ......................................................................................................16 3.3.1 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................16 3.3.2 Existing Conditions .................................................................................17

3.3.3 Environmental Consequences .................................................................18 3.4 Wetlands .............................................................................................................19

3.4.1 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................19

3.4.2 Existing Conditions ................................................................................20 3.4.3 Environmental Consequences .................................................................20

3.5 Floodplains & Hydrology ...................................................................................21

3.5.1 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................21 3.5.2 Existing Conditions .................................................................................22 3.5.3 Environmental Consequences .................................................................24

3.6 Coastal Resources ...............................................................................................26


Mirabeau Water Garden Storm Water Management and Flood Mitigation Project Draft Environmental Assessment ii

3.7 Biological Resources ..........................................................................................28 3.7.1 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................28 3.7.2 Existing Conditions .................................................................................29 3.7.3 Environmental Consequences .................................................................30

3.8 Air Quality ..........................................................................................................30 3.8.1 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................30 3.8.2 Existing Conditions .................................................................................31 3.8.3 Environmental Consequences .................................................................31

3.9 Noise ...................................................................................................................32


3.10 Traffic and Parking .............................................................................................34

3.10.1 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................34 3.10.2 Existing Conditions .................................................................................34

3.10.3 Environmental Consequences .................................................................35 3.11 Historic and Cultural Resources .........................................................................35


3.12 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice .......................................................37 3.12.1 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................37

3.12.2 Existing Conditions .................................................................................38 3.12.3 Environmental Consequences .................................................................38

3.13 Hazardous Material .............................................................................................40

3.13.1 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................40

3.13.2 Existing Conditions .................................................................................41 3.13.3 Environmental Consequences .................................................................41

3.14 Public Safety .......................................................................................................43

3.14.1 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................43 3.14.2 Existing Conditions .................................................................................43

3.14.3 Environmental Consequences .................................................................43

4.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ............................................................................................................ 44

4.1 Environmental Consequences .............................................................................47

5.0 CONDITIONS AND MITIGATION MEASURES .......................................................................... 53

6.0 AGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ...................................................... 55

6.1 Agency Coordination ..........................................................................................55 6.2 Public Involvement .............................................................................................56

7.0 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 58

8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................................................................... 59

Mirabeau Water Garden Storm Water Management and Flood Mitigation Project Draft Environmental Assessment iii

9.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................................... 60

APPENDICES

Appendix A Site Photographs

Appendix B Mirabeau Water Garden Storm Water Management and Flood Mitigation 100%

Design Report

Appendix C September 2017 Proposal for Hydrogeological Investigation

Appendix D Agency Communications

Appendix E 8-Step

Appendix F Hydrology and Hydraulics Model Results

Appendix G Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the 1200 Block of Mirabeau Avenue

Appendix H Draft Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)

Appendix I Public Notice

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. The probability of a 2-, 5-, or 10-year event occurring within four different time

periods ..................................................................................................................... 2

Table 2. Description of Aquifers Found Below the Filmore Neighborhood. ..................... 18 Table 3 Average Noise Levels by Vehicle......................................................................... 34

Table 4: Demographic and Economic Information for the Census Tract In Which the Project

Area is Located and for Orleans Parish. (USEPA, 2017) ..................................... 39

Table 5 Projects Identified as Having Potential to Contribute to Cumulative impacts ..... 48

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Location of Orleans Parish, Louisiana, shown in red, in relation to other Parishes

in the State............................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2: 2015 USGS topographic map with project area outlined in yellow (National

Geographic Society, ESRI et al., 2013) .................................................................. 3

Figure 3: Aerial image with proposed project area shaded in green (National Geographic

Society, ESRI et al., 2013). ..................................................................................... 4

Figure 4 Alternative 2 - Treatment Cell Storage and Permanent Pool (Waggonner & Ball

Architects, 2015). .................................................................................................... 7 Figure 5 Key Features of Alternative 3 - Pond Storage Using Existing Topography

(Preferred Alternative) (Waggoner & Ball, 2018; Waggonner & Ball Architects,

Sherwood Design Engineers, and Carbo Landscape Architecture, 2018). ............. 9

Figure 6 Depiction of Selected Design Performance During a 10-Year Return Interval, 24-

Hour Duration, Rainfall Event (Waggonner & Ball Architects, Sherwood Design

Engineers, and Carbo Landscape Architecture, 2018). ......................................... 11

Mirabeau Water Garden Storm Water Management and Flood Mitigation Project Draft Environmental Assessment iv

Figure 7 Generalized Geologic Map of Louisiana Indicating the general project location in

green (Snead, 2008). ............................................................................................. 14 Figure 8 National Wetlands Inventory Map with Project Area Outlined in Red (U.S. Fish &

Wildlife Service, 2017). ........................................................................................ 21

Figure 9 Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) 22071C0114F Showing Project Area (Federal

Emergency Management Agency, 2016). ............................................................. 23 Figure 10 Phase I ESA summary map of known hazardous material site near project location.

............................................................................................................................... 42 Figure 11 A map showing FEMA-funded projects within the Cumulative Impacts Study area.

............................................................................................................................... 46

Mirabeau Water Garden Storm Water Management and Flood Mitigation Project Draft Environmental Assessment v

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ABFE Advisory Base Flood Elevation

APE Area of Potential Effects

BFE Base Flood Elevation

BMP Best Management Practice

CAA Clean Air Act

CBRA Coastal Barrier Resources Act

CBRS Coastal Barrier Resources System

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CFS Cubic Feet per Second

CNO City of New Orleans

CO Carbon Monoxide

CUP Coastal Use Permit

CWA Clean Water Act

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act

dB Decibel

dBA A-Scale Weighted Sound Pressure Level in Decibels

DA Department of the Army

DFIRM Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map

DPS Drainage Pumping Station

EA Environmental Assessment

EHP Environmental and Historic Preservation

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

ESA Endangered Species Act

EO Executive Order

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act

GCR General Conformity Rule

GOHSEP Governor's Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness

HMGP Hazard Mitigation Grant Program

HP Historic Preservation

HUD United States Department of Housing and Urban Development

LAC Louisiana Administrative Code

LDEQ Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality

Mirabeau Water Garden Storm Water Management and Flood Mitigation Project Draft Environmental Assessment vi

LDNR Louisiana Department of Natural Resources

LDOTD Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development

Leq Equivalent Noise Level

LPDES Louisiana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

Mgal Millions of Gallons

MGD Million Gallons per Day

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NGVD North Geodetic Vertical Datum

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NFIP National Flood Insurance Program

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Services

O3 Ozone

OPA Otherwise Protected Area

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Act

PA Programmatic Agreement

Pb Lead

PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl

POLs Petroleum, Oil, and/or Lubricants

PL Public Law

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

SARA Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office/Officer

SO2 Sulfur Dioxide

SOV Solicitation of Views

SPOC Single Point of Contact

STAPLEE Social, Technical, Administrative, Political, Legal, Economic and

Environmental

SWBNO Sewerage & Water Board of New Orleans

SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load

TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

Mirabeau Water Garden Storm Water Management and Flood Mitigation Project Draft Environmental Assessment vii

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS United States Geological Survey

Mirabeau Water Garden Stormwater Management and Flood Mitigation Project Draft Environmental Assessment 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Authority

Hurricane Katrina made landfall on August 29, 2005 near Buras, Louisiana, with sustained winds

of more than 125 mph. The subsequent storm surge damaged levees and entered the city of New

Orleans from various coastal waterways. President George W. Bush declared a major disaster for

the state of Louisiana due to the damages and signed a disaster declaration authorizing the

Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to provide

federal assistance to communities. FEMA is administering this disaster assistance pursuant to the

Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act, Public Law [PL] 93-

288). Section 404 of this act authorizes FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) to

provide funding for state and local governments to implement long-term hazard mitigation

measures after major disaster declarations.

The City of New Orleans (CNO), through the Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and

Emergency Preparedness (GOHSEP), applied for funding through FEMA’s HMGP for projects

that would reduce flooding in the area during rain, flooding, and extreme weather events.

This Environmental Assessment (EA) report has been prepared pursuant to the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the President’s Council on Environmental Quality

(CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA Regulations for Implementing the Procedural

Provisions of the National Environment Policy Act of 2005, promulgated at Title 50 of the Code

of Federal Regulations, Sections 1500 through 1508 (40 CFR 1500-1508), and FEMA’s

procedures for implementing NEPA (FEMA Instruction 108-1-1). The purpose of this EA is to

analyze potential environmental impacts that the proposed Mirabeau Water Garden Storm Water

Management and Flood Mitigation project (referred to as the Mirabeau Water Garden throughout

this assessment) would have on the environment. FEMA will use the findings in this EA to

determine whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a Finding of No

Significant Impact (FONSI).

1.2 Background

As a result of Hurricane Katrina, the city of New Orleans suffered unprecedented damage from

flood waters and high winds. The Mirabeau Water Garden project area was included in the

damaged area. Orleans Parish is in southeastern Louisiana and includes the city of New Orleans,

as shown in Figure 1.

The Mirabeau Water Garden project area is located within the Filmore neighborhood of New

Orleans, between Bayou St. John and the London Avenue Canal. The proposed project is located

on a vacant, 25-acre site at 1200 Mirabeau Avenue. The project area is located between Mirabeau

Avenue (northern boundary); Cartier Avenue (eastern boundary); Owens Boulevard (southern

boundary); and St. Bernard Avenue (western boundary). Approximate coordinates of the property

corners are listed below.

Northwest Corner latitude 30.006672 degrees North, longitude 90.082082 degrees West

Northeast Corner latitude 30.006843 degrees North, longitude 90.079240 degrees West

Southeast Corner latitude 30.003612 degrees North, longitude 90.078813 degrees West

Southwest Corner latitude 30.003438 degrees North, longitude 90.081829 degrees West

Mirabeau Water Garden Storm Water Management and Flood Mitigation Project Draft Environmental Assessment 2

Figure 1: Location of Orleans Parish, Louisiana, shown in red, in relation to other Parishes in the State.

The Filmore neighborhood has received extensive flooding in the past and continues to flood

during 2-, 5-, and 10-year, 24-hour duration, rainfall events. Contrary to its name, a 2-year event

does not necessarily occur every 2 years, nor does a 10-year event necessarily occur every 10

years. Table 1 shows the probabilities of 2-, 5- or 10-year rainfall events.

Table 1. The probability of a 2-, 5-, or 10-year event occurring within four different time periods

2-year event 5-year event 10-year event

Probability within 1 year 50% 20% 10%

Probability within 2 years 75% 36% 19%

Probability within 5 years 96.9% 67.2% 41%

Probability within 10 years 99.9% 89.3% 65.1%

The proposed project area is the former location of the Sisters of St. Joseph Convent. The convent

occupied the site from 1950 to 2005. After the convent and adjacent buildings were damaged by

the flooding in Hurricane Katrina, the Sisters relocated. Eventually, the buildings were demolished

in 2008, and the 25-acre property is now a vacant greenspace (Figure 2 and Figure 3). Currently,

the site is fenced off and is not accessible for public use. The Congregation of St. Joseph agreed


Figure 2: 2015 USGS topographic map with project area outlined in yellow (National Geographic Society,

ESRI et al., 2013)

to donate this land to the City of New Orleans (CNO) via a 99-year lease, on the condition that the

property be used to benefit the city by preserving and protecting the environment, improving the

quality of life, and reducing the risk of flooding for neighborhood residents. Accordingly, CNO

aspires for the Mirabeau Water Garden to become both an example of sustainable water

management for the lowland flood-prone areas of the city, as well as an educational destination

for residents to learn about water storage, filtration, and ecology. Photographs of the project site

can be found in Appendix A.

The Mirabeau Water Garden Project is one of 91 projects identified in the City of New Orleans

Hazard Mitigation Plan. As part of the effort to update the 2010 Hazard Mitigation Grant Program

Mitigation Plan, an updated and expanded planning process was used to review and update the

plan to ensure broad representation from the community. Stakeholders for this planning effort

included non-profits, community organizations, environmental groups, and regional governmental

agencies with an interest in and/or responsibility for hazard mitigation planning. In addition to a

CNO City Hall Working Group and Advisory Committee, two additional groups were convened

for the purpose of holding discussions specific to their responsibilities (i.e., Public Safety Group

and Non-Profits and Community Organizations Group).


Figure 3: Aerial image with proposed project area shaded in green (National Geographic Society, ESRI et

al., 2013).

The CNO Hazard Mitigation Plan includes 91 mitigation actions that meet the goals established

by CNO, meet one or more of the FEMA mitigation action categories, and will reduce or eliminate

risks to human life and property from one or more of the identified hazards in the plan. After the

final list of hazard mitigation actions was established, the City Hall Working Group and Advisory

Committee used the Social, Technical, Administrative, Political, Legal, Economic, and

Environmental (STAPLEE) methodology to evaluate and prioritize the mitigation actions for the

2015 Plan. This methodology was used to examine opportunities (benefits) and constraints (costs)

of implementing each action from the perspective of all seven of the STAPLEE criteria. By using

the STAPLEE methodology, CNO was able to evaluate and prioritize mitigation actions to

determine whether the actions addressed specific goals and objectives and where the actions are

appropriate for Orleans Parish. The Mirabeau Water Garden Project received a ranking of “High,”

similar to that of other Green Infrastructure drainage projects within the same drainage basin and

throughout New Orleans (City of New Orleans, 2015).

CNO had broad public involvement and used many vehicles to gain insight on the public’s

thoughts and to consider recommendations made by the public. A summary of these meetings is

provided in Section 7.2 Public Involvement.


1.3 Purpose and Need

FEMA provides grants to states and local governments to implement long-term hazard mitigation

measures through the HMGP. The purpose of the HMGP is to reduce the loss of human life and

property due to natural disasters and to enable mitigation measures to be implemented during

recovery from a disaster. The Mirabeau Water Garden project has been proposed by the City of

New Orleans for HMGP funding to mitigate flood risks in municipal areas.

The purpose of this project is to reduce damages to property in the project vicinity during 2-, 5-,

and 10-year, 24-hour duration, rainfall events by reducing the load on Drainage Pump Station

(DPS) 3 and Drainage Pump Station 4, which drain neighborhood runoff into the London Avenue

Canal.

Beginning in the early 20th century, swampy, low-lying areas in the city were drained to

accommodate further development. The Filmore neighborhood was developed intensely during

the latter half of the 20th century, particularly after World War II. Currently, the vast majority of

the area remains below sea level and is located in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)

Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). A SFHA is the area where the NFIP's floodplain management

regulations must be enforced, and the area where the mandatory purchase of flood insurance

applies. Additionally, the existing drainage system (i.e., traditional subsurface drainage connected

to outfall canals and pumping stations) can often be overwhelmed during 5- and 10-year rainfall

events. Consequently, in addition to being one of the most affected areas during Hurricane Katrina,

the Filmore neighborhood is typically exposed to flood hazards resulting from thunderstorms and

other intense rain events. The project is needed to protect structures, facilities, and residents in the

Filmore neighborhood from damages resulting from 2-, 5-, and 10-year, 24-hour duration, rainfall

events.

2.0 ALTERNATIVES

A basic principle of NEPA is that the federal government must consider reasonable alternatives to

a proposed action. Considering alternatives helps avoid unnecessary impacts and allows analysis

of reasonable ways to achieve the stated purpose. To warrant detailed evaluation, an alternative

must be reasonable. As determined by CEQ, “reasonable alternatives include those that are

practical or feasible from the technical and economic standpoint and using common sense, rather

than simply desirable from the standpoint of the applicant” (CEQ 1981). The following sections

identify alternatives considered by CNO that are subject to detailed evaluation in this EA. Two

alternatives were developed to address the purpose and need stated in the preceding section. The

three alternatives that are evaluated throughout this EA are:

Alternative 1 – No Action Alternative

Alternative 2 – Mirabeau Water Garden: Treatment Cell Storage and Permanent Pool

Alternative 3 – Mirabeau Water Garden: Pond Storage using Existing Topography (Preferred

Alternative).

Alternative 1 - No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative is included to identify the baseline conditions against which potential

impacts of implementation alternatives are evaluated. The No Action Alternative represents the

baseline condition of the environment if the proposed action is not implemented. Under the No


Action Alternative, the proposed drainage improvements would not be constructed in the project

area and the neighborhood would continue to experience flooding effects similar to those that have

occurred during past events. This alternative will be evaluated throughout this EA.

Alternative 2 - Mirabeau Water Garden: Treatment Cell Storage and Permanent Pool

The design of Alternative 2 includes the following elements to collect and detain storm water,

biologically treat it, and infiltrate it into the subsurface or discharge it to city storm drain system

at controlled rates. This alternative is represented in the 30% design report, dated May 2015

(Waggonner & Ball Architects, 2015), and Figure 4 shows the approximate layout of this design

alternative.

Two subsurface pump forebays in the northwest and southeast corners of the project area to

transfer water from the city storm water collection system

Rock-lined swales to divert surface runoff to project area

Water treatment cells and a permanent pool

Rain garden and bioswale designed to remove silt and pollution from surface runoff

Detention/infiltration basin to percolate water into the subsurface

Parking lot with subsurface storage

Weirs and berms to control excess overflow back to city storm water collection system

Key elements of this design concept are multiple underground and aboveground water storage

areas that would progressively fill to retain surface runoff and storm water at the site. This plan

uses pumping to control the flow of water into the site.

The northwest pump would lift water into a row of water treatment cells, thence into a permanent

pool aligned roughly west-to-east along the center of the site. The pool and some greenspace areas

would also be available for public use. The southeast pump would evenly distribute that flow into

a storm water storage basin.

Rainfall that accumulates directly onto the site would be collected via perimeter bioswales and

rain gardens. A dedicated collector system would also direct to a subsurface retention tank

constructed beneath the proposed southern parking area. A proposed berm along the southern

portion of the site would also retain water aboveground for percolation into the subsurface.

This design alternative uses the natural landscape (e.g., mounds, native vegetation, etc.) to

distribute water throughout the site. To be eligible for FEMA HMGP, applicants must sign a

maintenance agreement, agreeing to maintain the proposed improvements for the life of project.

A project-specific Operations and Maintenance Plan was also developed, that includes the

following inspection, periodic testing, cleaning, and maintenance activities, as appropriate.

Mechanical equipment (e.g., pumps and valves)

Flow control features (e.g., weirs, debris screens, settling chambers

Vegetation and landscaping (e.g., mowing, weeding, pruning, herbicide application)

General site housekeeping


Alternative 2 meets the purpose and need of the action and will, therefore, continue to be evaluated

throughout this EA.

Figure 4 Alternative 2 - Treatment Cell Storage and Permanent Pool (Waggonner & Ball Architects,

2015).


Alternative 3 - Mirabeau Water Garden: Basin Storage Using Existing Topography

(Preferred Alternative)

The primary components of this alternative are two separate water retention basins (Mirabeau

Basin and Owens Basin). Mirabeau Basin is graded to allow retention of approximately 8.5 million

gallons (Mgal) of storm water storage. Owens Basin is graded to accommodate 2.5 Mgal of

storage. The basins are designed to provide storage above the water table with no liner, allowing

for infiltration of water into the subsurface. This alternative creates a floodable landscape that can

react and adapt to various levels of inundation up to a 10-year return interval, 24-hour duration,

rainfall event.

This alternative also preserves much of the existing vegetation and topography in the design,

avoiding removal of many of the native tree species that have grown on the property for decades.

The shapes of the basins were designed to protect existing trees and to minimize excavation by

taking advantage of existing grades. Several vegetative clusters and existing trees on the property,

augmented with new plantings, would be retained to reflect the historic Pine Island Barrier Sands

geologic trend that underlies much of the site. The proposed layout for the site is depicted in

Figures 5 and 6.

The site would be accessible to the public via Mirabeau Avenue from the north and Owens

Boulevard from the south, where parking areas would be surfaced with pervious pavers and gravel

to further aid infiltration of surface runoff. Boardwalks and gravel paths would provide both

maintenance and public access throughout the site. The existing topography (including an area of

higher ground where the St. Joseph buildings once stood), vegetative clusters, and a large, open

field would provide ample room for future public use of the site (Waggoner & Ball, 2018). The

applicant plans to incorporate future instructional signage and educational programs into the site

(Figure 5).

The drainage scope for this design alternative includes diversion of storm water runoff from the

city storm drain system into two large retention basins and from adjacent streets into perimeter

bioswales. Storm water from the city storm drain system beneath Mirabeau Avenue would be

diverted by gravity flow into a forebay at the northwest corner of the site, where a vortex separator

would retain and remove settleable solids and floating oils/debris. From the separator, storm water

would flow to a wet well, where it would then be pumped into the Mirabeau Basin, located along

the western portion of the site. Figure 6 depicts water storage and water circulation pattern during

a 10-year storm.

Bioswales are designed to improve captured storm water quality by gravity settling of suspended

solids and by filtration through plants and soils to further remove floating and suspended

contaminants. Surface runoff from surrounding streets, diverted by perimeter berms to these

bioswales, would also infiltrate into the subsurface. Parking and walking areas paved with

pervious pavers and gravel would also capture and infiltrate runoff at the site.

Water from the city storm drain system beneath Owens Boulevard and Cartier Avenue would begin

to fill the Owens Basin by gravity flow from Owens Boulevard. The Owens Basin, in the

southeastern portion of the site, would be connected to the adjacent Mirabeau Basin by a pair of

culvert pipes. The pipes are designed with flap gates that only allow flow from Owens Basin to

Mirabeau Basin when water surface elevations in Owens Basin exceed those in Mirabeau Basin.

The flap gates prevent backflow from Mirabeau Basin back to Owens Basin. Water from a 10-year


storm event will fill the Owens and Mirabeau Basins to an elevation of approximately 3.5 feet

below National Geodetic Vertical Datum (-3.5 feet NGVD).

The Mirabeau Basin inlet pump is designed to automatically prevent basin water elevations from

exceeding a maximum elevation of -3.5 feet NGVD. An overflow structure in the north weir

provides a discharge path in case the system continues to fill from direct runoff into the basins.

Figure 5 Key Features of Alternative 3 - Pond Storage Using Existing Topography (Preferred Alternative)

(Waggoner & Ball, 2018; Waggonner & Ball Architects, Sherwood Design Engineers, and Carbo

Landscape Architecture, 2018).

The overflow weir is designed to slowly discharge water from the basins back into the city storm

drain system, providing time for infiltration from the basins directly into the subsurface.

This alternative also includes a perimeter underdrain system to control infiltration into the

surrounding groundwater. The underdrain system is designed to collect excess water from

bioswale zones and overflow catch basins around the basins and direct it to the Mirabeau Basin


wet well. Water from the wet well would also serve as a water source for plant irrigation water

and recirculation through the site during dry periods.

Excess water from the underdrain wet well may also be diverted to the city storm water collection

system by automatic level-controlled pump. Integration of the perimeter underdrain and an


Figure 6 Depiction of Selected Design Performance During a 10-Year Return Interval, 24-Hour Duration,

Rainfall Event (Waggonner & Ball Architects, Sherwood Design Engineers, and Carbo

Landscape Architecture, 2018).

associated groundwater control/monitoring system into the site design provides a system to

monitor and control groundwater elevations.

To be eligible for FEMA HMGP, applicants must sign a maintenance agreement, agreeing to

maintain the proposed improvements for the life of project. A project-specific Operations and

Maintenance Plan was also developed, that includes the following inspection, periodic testing,

cleaning, and maintenance activities (as appropriate).

Mechanical equipment (e.g., pumps, flow controllers, vortex separator)

Flow control features (e.g., weirs, valves, drains)

Vegetation and landscaping (e.g., path/boardwalk maintenance, mowing, weeding, pruning,

herbicide application)

General site housekeeping

Alternative 3 meets the purpose and need of the action. This action alternative will therefore

continue to be evaluated throughout this EA.Comparison of Alternatives

Alternative 3, the preferred alternative, reduces construction, operation, and maintenance costs

associated with second set of pumps included in Alternative 2, while keeping the same overall

benefits. Unlike Alternative 2, the preferred alternative would not include a permanent pool.

However, the preferred alternative would include the addition of walkways to allow for

maintenance of the site.

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS

This section describes the existing environmental and socioeconomic conditions potentially

affected by the proposed action, as well as the potential environmental and socioeconomic impacts

of implementing the proposed action or its alternative. This section also provides information on

the existing condition at the site to serve as a baseline against which to identify and evaluate

environmental and socioeconomic changes likely to result from implementation of the proposed

action or its alternative.

3.1 Land Use

This section describes the existing land use setting in the project area and its vicinity, as well as

any potential impacts that would occur with each proposed action.

3.1.1 Regulatory Setting

The Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO) is the law that governs land use throughout the City

of New Orleans. The CZO includes lists of permitted land uses for each of the City’s zoning

districts, in addition to height limits, setback requirements, urban design standards, operational

rules, and other regulations. The CZO is broken into a series of Articles that cover citywide


standards, individual zoning district regulations, and the processes for variances, conditional use

permits, and other land use reviews.

3.1.2 Existing Conditions

Land use in urbanized portions of the Filmore neighborhood consists primarily of single and multi-

family residences with a component of commercial and industrial businesses. Public uses include

Interstate Highway 610 (I-610), rights-of-way for rail access to industrial businesses along I-610,

elementary and secondary schools, cemeteries, playgrounds, and City Park. Commercial activities

line the major thoroughfare of Paris Avenue. The 25-acre project area, a single property at 1200

Mirabeau Avenue, is zoned entirely as S-RS (Suburban Single-Family Residential). Currently the

site is fenced off and is not accessible for public use.

3.1.3 Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1 – No Action

No land use changes are proposed under the No Action Alternative.


Implementation of Alternative 2 would change the existing land use of the project site to a water

garden and storm water management facility. The CZO zoning designation might be changed

accordingly from S-RS (Suburban Single-Family Residential) to OS-N (Neighborhood Open

Space). The proposed Water Garden would store, manage, and treat (by solids settling and

biological filtration) storm water runoff. Additionally, this alternative would include the

construction of a permanent pool and the planned use of some greenspace areas as potential

recreational areas. Consequently, Alternative 2 would include visual and structural improvements

to the project site and would provide additional recreational opportunities for residents.

Alternative 3 -Mirabeau Water Garden: Pond Storage Using Existing Topography (Preferred

Alternative)

Implementation of the preferred alternative would also change the existing land use of the project

site to a water garden and storm water management facility. The CZO zoning designation might

be changed accordingly from S-RS, Suburban Single-Family Residential to OS-N, Neighborhood

Open Space. Similarly to Alternative 2, the proposed Water Garden would store, manage, and treat

(through solids settling and biological filtration) storm water runoff. Planned use of some

greenspace areas would include potential recreational areas. This land use change should be

discussed in community settings and throughout the public involvement process. Alternative 3

(Preferred Alternative) would include visual and structural improvements to the project site and

would provide additional recreational opportunities for residents.

3.2. Geology, Soils, and Topography


The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) (PL 97-98, Sections 1539-1549; 7 USC Section 4201,

et seq.) was enacted in 1981 and is intended to minimize the impact federal actions have toward

the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. This law assures

that, to the extent possible, federal programs and policies are administered in a way that is

compatible with state and local farmland protection policies and programs. To implement the

FPPA, federal agencies are required to develop and review their policies and procedures every two


years. The FPPA does not authorize the federal government to regulate the use of private or non-

federal land or, in any way, affect the property rights of owners.

For purposes of the FPPA, farmland includes prime farmland, unique farmland, and farmland of

statewide or local importance. Prime farmland is characterized as land with the best physical and

chemical characteristics for production of food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops (Natural

Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2016). Farmland subject to

FPPA requirements does not currently have to be used for cropland; it also can be forest land,

pastureland, or other land, but not water or built-up land.


The project area is situated in the Mississippi River delta plain in a heavily urbanized geographic

setting and a subsurface geologic setting of alluvium deposits from the river (Figure 7). The delta

plain typically consists of land that was historically flooded on a periodic basis and that was

covered with vegetation. Depending on elevation and degree of salinity, cypress-tupelo swamp,

freshwater marsh, brackish marsh, or saltwater marsh are found on the delta plain. The delta plain

is typically interspersed with bays, tidal channels and lakes.

Extensive development of the greater New Orleans metropolitan area (including the project area)

throughout the 20th century has transformed the project area into a suburban area where periodic

flooding is no longer caused by the Mississippi River overtopping its banks. Periodic inundation

of the project area and vicinity by fresh waters from the river or by brackish waters from Lake

Pontchartrain is now controlled by an extensive levee system designed by United States Army

Corps of Engineers (USACE) to protect the New Orleans area (including the project area) from

flooding caused by hurricane storm surges. Periodic flooding in the project area can still occur if

heavy rainfall generates storm water runoff at rates that exceed storm water removal rates of the

municipal storm water collection and removal system, operated by Sewerage & Water Board of

New Orleans (SWBNO).

Surface soils present within the project area are mapped by Natural Resources Conservation

Service (NRCS) as Schriever clay (0-1 percent slopes). This soil has a shallow depth to the

saturated zone (generally 0.5 foot), high clay content, high shrink-swell potential, unstable

excavation walls, low strength, and potential for flooding. The Schriever clay is a hydric soil

(Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2016). The Pine Island

Barrier Sand is the first encountered water-bearing geologic zone at the project area. In the

southern part of the project area, this lithologic zone outcrops at the ground surface, but it is

generally first encountered across the project site at a depth of 5 feet below ground surface, under

an overlying, confining clay unit. The average thickness of the Pine Island Barrier Sand zone in

the project area is about 40 feet. This permeable unit is in direct contact with many surface water

sources in the vicinity of the project area, including Bayou St. John, drainage canals, ditches,

sewers, storm water pipes, and direct rainwater infiltration.

Prior to construction of drainage canals and flood control levees, the topography of Orleans Parish

varied from a high of about 15 feet above sea level on natural levees to sea level. Typical landforms

present, from high to low elevation, were the natural levees to back swamps to coastal marshes to

the gulf or other water body (U.S. Geological Survey, 1939, 1951, 1965, 1966, 1983, 1998, 1999,

2012, 2015). The project area was originally characterized as cypress swamp.


According to a preliminary hydrogeology evaluation report provided as an appendix to the April

13, 2018, Final Design Report (Appendix B), current groundwater levels fluctuate approximately

around 3 to 4 feet below surface level. The lowest groundwater levels correspondent with typical

depth of sewer and storm drainage pipes (12 feet below sea level) in the site vicinity, and the

hydraulic head elevation (i.e., artesian groundwater pressure in the Pine Barrier Sand zone) is often

above the bases of the overlying clayey deposits. The Mirabeau project area is a groundwater

discharge area; the shallow groundwater is recharged by surface water infiltration into the

subsurface, and groundwater discharge (seepage) from the subsurface is controlled by evaporation

and groundwater drainage into the underground infrastructure (storm drainage and sewer pipes in

the surrounding streets.

Figure 7 Generalized Geologic Map of Louisiana Indicating the general project location in green (Snead,

2008).

Flow rates and volumes of groundwater seepage to the surface are not known; this information is

necessary to analyze the impact of surface water storage on the surrounding area (Waggonner &

Ball Architects, Sherwood Design Engineers, and Carbo Landscape Architecture, 2018).

Additional geotechnical and hydrogeological investigations are planned, according to a

preliminary groundwater investigation proposal provided by CNO (Appendix C), but a detailed

investigation scope or specific implementation schedule has not yet been provided. That

investigation would include collection of samples and geotechnical analyses to characterize

groundwater conditions of the site and site vicinity. Geotechnical investigation results would be


evaluated by the applicant to characterize groundwater seepage and infiltration flow rates and

volumes to refine the design of groundwater seepage collection systems, if required.



The scope of the No Action Alternative includes no construction activities in the project area.

Therefore, this alternative would have no effects differing from the baseline condition on geology,

soils, or topography, and no effects on prime, unique, statewide, or locally important farmland

would occur. The corresponding no change in frequency of local flooding could result in further

erosion of soils within the project area and offers no change in control of flooding to surrounding

properties and structures.


Per a response from United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), dated January 19, 2017,

the proposed construction areas are in urban areas and, therefore, are exempt from the rules and

regulations of the FPPA – Subtitle I of Title XV, Section 1539-1549. This response is included in

Appendix D.

Construction activity would result in adverse direct impacts from localized soil disturbance

because of clearing and grubbing activities (where needed) and installation of the drainage

improvement infrastructure. Soils would also be exposed during grading and trenching activities.

Direct and indirect beneficial impacts to soils in the project area and the greater Filmore

neighborhood would occur during the operation of the Mirabeau Water Garden as storm water

would be stored onsite, and slowly released into the groundwater and storm sewer system.

Additionally, mandatory compliance by CNO and its contractors with applicable local, state, and

federal causing less sedimentation.

Impacts to the groundwater will require further analysis after the proposed groundwater

investigation is complete. According to the groundwater proposal provided as Appendix C, the

CNO will need to implement a control mechanism or other best management practices (BMPs) to

maintain groundwater table elevation in and around the project area that will not contribute to

excessive groundwater seepage to the surface (Waggoner & Ball, 2018), but a detailed scope or

specific implementation schedule has not been provided. Results of this testing will be made

publicly available through the New Orleans Department of Public Works. CNO is also required to

coordinate with Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) regarding the results of

their investigation.

Alternative 3 -Mirabeau Water Garden: Pond Storage Using Existing Topography (Preferred

Alternative)

Per a response from USDA, dated January 19, 2017, the proposed construction areas are in urban

areas and therefore are exempt from the rules and regulations of the FPPA – Subtitle I of Title XV,

Section 1539-1549. This response is included in Appendix D.

Construction activity would result in adverse direct impacts from localized soil disturbance

because of clearing and grubbing activities (where needed) and installation of the drainage

improvement infrastructure. Soils would also be exposed during grading and trenching activities.

Under the preferred alternative less soil disturbance would occur as the contouring of the ponds


would use the existing topography. Indirect and direct beneficial impacts would be similar to those

described under Alternative 2.

This alternative proposes a perimeter underdrain system to control groundwater seepage into the

project site and surrounding area. According to the applicant’s groundwater investigation

proposal (Appendix C), additional subsurface sampling and analyses are planned to more fully

characterize groundwater conditions at the project site and to collect design information to refine

anticipated flow rates and pipe sizes for the proposed perimeter underdrain system. Updates to

the perimeter underdrain final design, based on the subsurface investigation, would be

incorporated into the project around the mid-point of construction. Results of this testing would be

made publicly available through the New Orleans Department of Public Works. CNO is also

required to coordinate with LDEQ regarding the results of an investigation of this type.

3.3 Water Quality


Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires state certification of all federal licenses and

permits in which there is a “discharge of fill material into navigable waters.” The certification

process is used to determine whether an activity, as described in the federal license or permit,

would impact established site-specific water quality standards. A water quality certification from

the issuing state agency, LDEQ in this case, is required prior to the issuance of the relevant federal

license or permit.

The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program was created by

Section 402 of the CWA. This program authorizes the United States Environmental Protection

Agency (USEPA) to issue permits for the point source discharge of pollutants into waters of the

U.S. Through a 2004 Memorandum of Agreement, the USEPA delegated its permit program for

the state of Louisiana to LDEQ. The ensuing Louisiana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(LPDES) program authorizes individual permits, general permits, storm water permits, and

pretreatment activities that result in discharges to jurisdictional waters of the state.

Under Section 303(d) of the CWA, states, territories and authorized tribes, are required to develop

lists of impaired waters. These are waters for which technology-based regulations and other

required controls are not stringent enough to meet the water quality standards set by states. The

law requires that states establish priority rankings for waters on the lists and develop Total

Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for these waters. A TMDL includes a calculation of the

maximum amount of a pollutant that can be present in a waterbody and still meet water quality

standards.

The LPDES requires permits for the discharge of pollutants/wastewater from any point source into

waters of the State. Per the CWA, the term “point source” is defined as “any discernible, confined,

and discrete conveyance such as a pipe or a ditch.” All point source discharges of pollutants to

waters in the state of Louisiana are subject to a LPDES permit issued by LDEQ. Additionally,

LDEQ requires a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for land disturbing activities

greater than one acre. For land disturbing activities greater than five acres, LDEQ requires the

following submittals.

SWPPP


Notice of Intent to operate under LDEQ General Permit currently in effect for storm water

discharges associated with construction activity

Notice of Completion of activities under the LDEQ General Permit, after completion of work

The City of New Orleans currently manages storm water discharges under a NPDES Municipal

Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit. The NPDES MS4 permit requires permittees to

develop and implement a comprehensive Storm Water Management Program (SWMP) that must

include pollution prevention measures, treatment or removal techniques, monitoring, use of legal

authority, and other appropriate measures to control the quality of storm water discharged to the

storm drains and thence to waters of the United States (MS4 Permit Number LAS000301).


The project area is in the drainage basin of DPS 3. The drainage system for the project area consists

of catch basins and drop-inlets that receive surface runoff from the project area, surrounding

properties, and streets. Runoff that enters drop-inlets is conveyed underground to DPS 3 and into

the London Avenue Canal that flows north into Lake Pontchartrain. The London Avenue Canal is

not listed on USEPA’s 303(d) list of impaired waters (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

2014).

Regionally, the greater New Orleans area obtains potable groundwater from the Gonzales-New

Orleans aquifer, a much deeper aquifer with the majority of groundwater withdrawals. Other

groundwater resources in the New Orleans area include the shallow Mississippi River point-bar

deposits, the Gramercy aquifer, the Norco aquifer, and the deeper “1,200-foot” sand of the New

Orleans aquifer. Primary drinking water sources for Orleans Parish are the Mississippi River and

the Gonzales-New Orleans aquifer, and some of the shallow aquifers (above the Gonzales-New

Orleans aquifer) could be a viable emergency source of potable water in the area (Table 2)

(Prakken, 2009). In 2010, the total average amounts of water withdrawal were 602 million gallons

per day (MGD) from the Mississippi River and 13 MGD from aquifers.


Table 2. Description of Aquifers Found Below the Filmore Neighborhood.

Aquifer or aquifer system

(clay units separating aquifers

are not listed) Aquifer Characteristics Water Quality

Shallow point-bar deposit aquifers

Up to 150 feet thick; found

inside the Mississippi River

bends

Freshwater in areas

adjacent to the river

Other shallow sand aquifers of

New Orleans area

50 to 100 feet thick; shallower

than 200 feet below ground

surface; discontinuous

Saltwater

Gramercy aquifer

Up to 150 feet thick; top is

generally found at 100 to 250

feet below ground surface

Saltwater

Norco aquifer

50 to 150 feet thick; top is

generally found at 250 to 350

feet below ground surface

Mostly saltwater except

for a narrow area along

Lake Pontchartrain

Gonzales-New Orleans aquifer

150 to 300 feet thick; top is

found between 400 to 700 feet

below ground surface;

continuous throughout the

area

Freshwater with

saltwater in the southern

and western part of the

area

“1,200-foot” sand (aquifer)

about 100 feet thick; top is

found approximately 750 feet

below ground surface

Saltwater

Currently, groundwater in the Pine Island Barrier Sands (discussed in Section 4.2.2) beneath the

project area flows toward the northeast. The shallow groundwater observed in the Pine Island

Barrier Sand is not a viable drinking water resource. Several impermeable units separate the Pine

Island Barrier Sand from deeper permeable units which may be potable aquifers).



The No Action Alternative would have no effects differing from the baseline condition on water

resources in the project area and Orleans Parish.


Short-term adverse impacts to surface water and water quality from the implementation of

Alternative 2 could arise from soil disturbance and surface runoff during construction. However,

mandatory LPDES permitting for the proposed construction activities at the project location is

intended to minimize those impacts. Because the proposed land disturbing activities would be

greater than five acres, the applicable LPDES general permit would require a SWPPP, submittal


of a Notice of Intent (NOI) to LDEQ prior to commencement of construction activities, and

submittal of a Notice of Completion to LDEQ after completion of construction activities.

Long-term, beneficial impacts to water quality of surface water and groundwater are expected

during the operation of the Mirabeau Water Garden Project. Planned retention of water onsite,

reduced storm water flow rates into the municipal storm water collection system, and reduced

sediment loads into surface water are all benefits that directly result from this alternative, as are

increased rates of groundwater infiltration. No significant impacts to surface waters or water

quality are therefore anticipated under Alternative 2.

Alternative 3 - Mirabeau Water Garden: Pond Storage Using Existing Topography (Preferred

Alternative)

Short-term adverse impacts to surface water and water quality from the implementation of

Alternative 3 could arise from soil disturbance and surface runoff during construction. However,

mandatory LPDES permitting for the proposed construction activities at the project location is

intended to minimize those impacts. Because the proposed land disturbing activities would be

greater than five acres, the applicable LPDES general permit would require a SWPPP, submittal

of a Notice of Intent (NOI) to LDEQ prior to commencement of construction activities, and

submittal of a Notice of Completion to LDEQ after completion of construction activities.

Proper design of this alternative would be based on results of the subsurface investigation proposed

in Appendix C. This alternative proposes a perimeter underdrain system to control groundwater

seepage into the project site and surrounding area. According to the applicant’s groundwater

investigation proposal, additional subsurface sampling and analyses are planned to more fully

characterize groundwater conditions at the project site and to collect design information to refine

anticipated flow rates and pipe sizes for the proposed perimeter underdrain system. Updates to the

perimeter underdrain final design, based on the subsurface investigation, would be incorporated

into the project around the mid-point of construction. Results of this testing will be made publicly

available through the New Orleans Department of Public Works. CNO is also required to

coordinate with LDEQ regarding the results of their investigation.

Long-term, beneficial impacts to water quality would be similar to those described for

Alternative 2, and no significant impacts to surface waters or water quality are anticipated under

the Preferred Alternative.

3.4 Wetlands


Wetlands are defined as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at

a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a

prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally

include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas” (33 CFR 328.3[b]) (United States Department

of Defense, Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, 1986). USACE, through its permit

program, regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States,

including wetlands, pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA. USACE regulates the discharge of

dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S., including wetlands, pursuant to Sections 401 and

404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). In addition, USEPA has regulatory oversight of the USACE

permit program, allowing USEPA under CWA Section 404c to veto USACE-issued permits where


there are unacceptable environmental impacts (United States Environmental Protection Agency,

2018).

Executive Order (EO) 11990, Protection of Wetlands, directs federal agencies to minimize the

destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands and to preserve and enhance the values of wetlands

for federally funded projects. FEMA regulations for complying with EO 11990 are found at

44 CFR 9, Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands.


According to the National Wetlands Inventory map available from United States Fish and Wildlife

Service (USFWS), no wetlands exist at the site (Figure 8). This classification is based on aerial

imagery and thus this area may or may not be classified as a wetland during a wetland

determination. A wetlands determination has not been conducted for this site. The Filmore

neighborhood has been protected by a levee and drained by canals since before 1938 (U.S.

Geological Survey, 1939, 1951, 1965, 1966, 1983, 1998, 1999, 2012, 2015).



The No Action Alternative would include no construction activities in the project area. Therefore,

this alternative would have no adverse impacts on wetlands.


Because the project area has been drained and is completely built up, implementation of

Alternative 2 would have no adverse effects on wetlands. The proposed project would create new

wetlands within the project area. These new wetlands would provide a natural space to retain storm

water runoff and to provide a natural filter for removal of pollutants from storm water. The

proposed wetlands would also provide aesthetic, educational, and ecological value to the area

resulting in long-term beneficial impacts.

A Solicitation of Views (SOV) was sent to USACE; per correspondence dated May 5, 2017,

USACE does not require a Department of Army permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.


Figure 8 National Wetlands Inventory Map with Project Area Outlined in Red (U.S. Fish & Wildlife

Service, 2017).


Alternative)

Because the project area has been drained and is completely built up, implementation of the

Preferred Alternative would have no adverse effects on wetlands. The long-term beneficial impacts

under the Preferred Alternative would be similar in nature, but greater in effect, to those described

for Alternative 2, because the Preferred Alternative would create more wetlands. These proposed

wetlands would provide a natural space to retain storm water runoff and to provide a natural filter

for removal of pollutants from storm water. The wetlands would also provide aesthetic,

educational, and ecological value to the area resulting in long-term beneficial impacts.

An SOV was sent to USACE. Per correspondence dated May 5, 2017, USACE does not require a

Department of Army permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

3.5 Floodplains & Hydrology


Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, requires federal agencies to avoid direct or

indirect support or development within or affecting the 1 percent annual chance special flood

hazard area (i.e., 100-year floodplain) whenever there is a practicable alternative (for “Critical


Actions,” within the 0.2 percent annual chance special flood hazard area, or the 500-year

floodplain). FEMA used NFIP Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) to determine the flood hazard

zone for the proposed project location. FEMA regulations for complying with EO 11988 are

codified in 44 CFR Part 9, Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands.

This EA forms part of the “Eight-Step Planning Process” (44 CFR 9.6) that decision-makers must

use when considering projects either located within the floodplain or with the potential to affect

the floodplain. The Eight-Step Planning Process: assesses the action regarding human

susceptibility to flood harm and impacts to wetlands; analyzes principle flood problems, risks from

flooding, history of flood loss, and existing flood protection measures; and includes public notice

and opportunity for the public to have early and meaningful participation in decision-making and

alternative selection. If impacts cannot be avoided, the Eight-Step Planning Process includes

requirements to incorporate measures to minimize and mitigate potential risks from flooding and

impacts to wetlands as appropriate.

Under 44 CFR Part 9, FEMA is required to avoid activities in a floodplain unless it is the only

practicable alternative. If a proposed project in the floodplain is the only practicable alternative,

then FEMA must minimize the impacts to the floodplain and the impacts from floods to the facility

or structure being proposed. Minimization techniques apply to the location of structures, facilities

equipment, and building contents in floodplain areas. This could include elevating facilities or

structures above the base flood elevation. Minimization techniques may include flood-proofing

structures or facilities.


The Parish of Orleans enrolled in the NFIP on October 19, 1971. The project area is partially

located within Special Flood Hazard Area Zone "AE", Elevation 1, and 0.2 percent chance of

annual flood, per Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel Number 22071C0114F, dated

September 30, 2016 (Figure 9).

In July 2005, prior to Hurricane Katrina, FEMA initiated a series of flood insurance studies for

many of Louisiana’s coastal parishes as part of the Flood Map Modernization Effort through

FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Fund. These studies were necessary because the flood hazard

and risk information shown on the effective Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) was developed

during the 1970s. Since that time, the physical terrain had changed considerably, including the

significant loss of wetland areas. After Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, FEMA expanded the scope

of work to include all of coastal Louisiana. The magnitude of impacts caused by the two hurricanes

reinforced the urgency to obtain additional flood recovery data for the coastal zones of Louisiana.

More detailed analysis was possible because new data obtained after the hurricanes included

information on levees and levee systems, new high-water marks, and new hurricane parameters.

During an initial post-hurricane analysis, FEMA determined that the 100-year, or 1 percent annual

chance, storm flood elevations on FIRMs for many Louisiana communities - including the

community where the project area is located - were too low or were not adequate for protection.

These storm flood elevations are referred to as Base Flood Elevations (BFEs). FEMA created

recovery maps showing the extent and magnitude of the surges from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita,

as well as information on other storms over the past 25 years. The 2006 advisory flood data shown

on the recovery maps for the Louisiana-declared disaster areas indicated high-water marks

surveyed after the storm, flood limits developed from these surveyed points, and Advisory Base


Figure 9 Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) 22071C0114F Showing Project Area (Federal Emergency

Management Agency, 2016).

Flood Elevations (ABFEs). These recovery maps and other advisory data were developed to assist

parish officials, homeowners, business owners, and other affected citizens with their recovery and

rebuilding efforts.

Updated preliminary flood hazard maps from an intensive 5-year mapping project guided by

FEMA subsequently were provided to all Louisiana coastal parishes. These maps, released in


early 2008, known as Preliminary Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRMs), were based on

the most technically advanced flood insurance studies ever performed for Louisiana, followed by

multiple levels of review. The DFIRMs provided communities with a more scientific approach to

economic development, hazard mitigation planning, emergency response, and post-flood recovery.

USACE has completed work on a Hurricane and Storm Damage Risk Reduction System

(HSDRRS) for the Greater New Orleans area (United States Department of Defense, Department

of the Army, Corps of Engineers, 2011), which includes the project area. This 350-mile system of

levees, floodwalls, surge barriers, and pump stations reduce the flood risk associated with a storm

event. In September 2011, USACE provided FEMA with assurances the HSDRRS is capable of

defending against a storm surge with a 1 percent annual chance event of occurring in any given

year (United State Department of Defense, Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, 2012).

The areas protected include portions of St. Bernard, St. Charles, Jefferson, Orleans, and

Plaquemines Parishes. FEMA has revised the preliminary DFIRMS within the HSDRRS to

incorporate the reduced flood risk associated with the system improvements.

In November 2012, FEMA revised the 2008 preliminary DFIRMS within the HSDRRS to

incorporate the reduced flood risk associated with the system improvements. The preliminary

DFIRMs were subsequently revised in 2013 and 2014. On September 30, 2016, the 2014 Revised

Preliminary DFIRMs for Orleans Parish became effective. The 2016 Effective DFIRMs are the

best available flood risk data for Orleans Parish.

The drainage system for Orleans Parish consists of many features typical of large urban cities in

the United States, and some features that are unique because much of the area is below sea level.

As in any urbanized area, catch basins and drop-inlets receive surface runoff from rooftops, yards

and streets, and excess runoff runs downslope overland and/or in the streets to areas of lower

elevation.

Runoff that can enter drop-inlets flows underground in small-diameter pipes (i.e., 36 inches or less

in diameter)), called the tertiary system. The tertiary system collects local flows and conveys them

to the secondary system, 36 inches to 60 inches in diameter, where several of these local flows

combine and are conveyed to the primary system.

Generally, pipes or box culverts larger than 60 inches in diameter are considered to be part of the

primary system. Large underground concrete box culverts, as large as 16 feet wide by 11 feet

high, convey primary system flows from the Filmore neighborhood to the suction basin at pumping

stations DPS 3 and DPS 4. Both stations pump directly to the tidal waters of Lake Pontchartrain

via the London Avenue Canal. As previously stated in this EA, the existing drainage system in the

Filmore neighborhood is often overwhelmed during heavy rainfall events, largely due to excessive

runoff flow rates.



The scope of the No Action alternative includes no upgrades to the current drainage infrastructure,

and localized flooding would continue to impact the area as urban development increases and

current drainage systems continue to age, with corresponding reductions in drainage capacity.



As required by Section 9.6 of EO 11988, the Eight-Step Planning Process was conducted for this

EA. The findings of the process indicate that no adverse impacts to or within the base floodplain

are anticipated. A copy of the Eight-Step documentation for this project is included in Appendix

E.

Alternative 2 would provide flood mitigation and increased storm water storage capacity for the

Filmore neighborhood. The project would have no discernible benefit or cost during a 1%

(100-year) flooding event in the Mirabeau Basin. Significant benefits and costs are associated with

this project for more frequent, lower-discharge, 24-hour-duration rainfall events (2-year, 5-year,

and 10-year). The drainage basin containing the project area does not have any inflows coming in

from outside, so no “upstream” impacts are considered. This project alternative is designed to

decrease storm water runoff flowrates, particularly those associated with more frequent, lower-

discharge, 24-hour rainfall events (2-, 5-, and 10-year return intervals) in the Mirabeau basin.

Storm water flow rates from the project area would be reduced through a series of on-site collection

mitigation actions, diversion of storm water loads to pumping stations DPS 3 and DPS 4, leading

to smaller discharge flows to the London Avenue Canal. Downstream impacts would be

minimal/negligible as these receiving channels carry a significantly higher flow, with later flow-

rate peaking times. Additional benefits include the capture of on-site rainfall, and infiltration of

surface runoff into the soils, which would also contribute to the reduction of local subsidence

issues associated with lowered ground water tables.

Construction of the Mirabeau Water Garden Storm water Management and Flood Mitigation

Project would therefore improve the floodwater storage capacity of the floodplain by increasing

the amount of infiltration to groundwater. The action could potentially support development in the

floodplain by reducing flood hazards in the project area; however, the project area is an already

densely populated urban area with little room for further development.

Per 44 CFR 9.11(d)(6), no project should be built to a floodplain management standard that is less

protective than what the community has adopted in local ordinances through their participation in

the NFIP. The project is in compliance with Chapter 78 of the City of New Orleans Code of

Ordinances, The Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, according to a letter from the CNO

Floodplain Administrator, dated May 1, 2017.


Alternative)

As required by Section 9.6 of EO 11988, the Eight-Step Planning Process was conducted for this

EA. The findings of the process and of this floodplain assessment indicate that no adverse impacts

to, or within, the base floodplain are anticipated.

Despite some design differences, the preferred alternative is expected to have similar beneficial

impacts to the floodplain as Alternative 2. Alternative 3 would provide flood mitigation and

increased storm water storage capacity in the Filmore neighborhood.

The project would have no discernible benefit or cost during a 1% probability (100-year) rainstorm

flooding event in the Mirabeau Basin. The benefits and costs associated with this project are for

more frequent, lower-discharge events (2-, 5-, and 10-year return intervals). The Filmore drainage

basin does not have any inflows coming in from outside, so no “upstream” impacts are considered.

The project scope is designed to decrease storm water flow rates, and particularly, to reduce storm


water surface elevations for these more frequent, lower-discharge events (2-, 5-, and 10-year return

intervals) in the Mirabeau basin. These storm water flow rate and water level reductions would be

effected through a series of on-site collection mitigation actions, diversion of storm water loads

from pumping stations DPS 3 and DPS 4, thus resulting in smaller discharge flow rates to the

London Avenue Canal. Per the final upstream/downstream analysis, indicated in the applicant’s

H&H study report (Appendix F), the project would reduce water surface elevations and the number

of flooded off-site structures during the 2-, 5-, and 10-year flooding events in the Mirabeau basin.

Additional benefits include the capture of on-site rainfall, and infiltration of surface runoff into the

soils, which would also contribute to the reduction of local subsidence issues associated with

lowered ground water tables.

Construction of the Mirabeau Water Garden Storm water Management and Flood Mitigation

Project would therefore improve the floodwater storage capacity of the floodplain by increasing

the amount of infiltration to groundwater. The action could potentially support development in the

floodplain by reducing flood hazards in the project area; however, the project area is an already

densely populated urban area with little room for further development.

Alternative 3 would have similar direct and indirect impacts as Alternative 2. The function of this

proposed alternative of the Mirabeau Water Garden Storm Water Management and Flood

Mitigation project would be the same or very similar to that of Alternative 2 and is a practicable

and desirable alternative. Additionally, the hydrology and hydraulics modeling results report

(Appendix F) states that,

This project reduces the storm runoff load on the existing storm sewer system. Upstream

areas are expected to receive immediate benefits for various storms, and additional

benefits from this project as the typically constricted storm sewer flow is improved by

replacement of currently undersized storm sewer pipes with larger pipes included in the

City capital improvements program. The downstream system would receive immediate

benefits as the storm runoff flow burden on the serving storm sewer and pump stations

are reduced. The flow from this area flows DPS 3 and DPS 4. Both of these pump stations

outlet to the London Avenue Canal. The pump stations are maintained by the Sewerage

and Water Board of New Orleans. There are no anticipated negative impacts to the

upstream or downstream watersheds as a result of this project. (MSMM Engineering,

LLC, 2018)

Per 44 CFR 9.11(d)(6), no project should be built to a floodplain management standard that is less

protective than what the community has adopted in local ordinances through their participation in

the NFIP. The project is in compliance with Chapter 78 of the City of New Orleans Code of

Ordinances, The Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, according to a letter from the CNO

Floodplain Administrator, dated May 1, 2017.

3.6 Coastal Resources


The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 (16 USC 1451, et seq.) is administered by

the Department of Commerce’s Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management within the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). It applies to all coastal states and to

all states that border the Great Lakes. The CZMA was established to help prevent any additional

loss of living marine resources, wildlife, and nutrient-enriched areas; alterations in ecological


systems; and decreases in undeveloped areas available for public use. The CZMA gives states the

authority to determine whether activities of governmental agencies are consistent with federally-

approved coastal zone management programs. Each state coastal zone management program must

include provisions protecting coastal natural resources, fish, and wildlife; managing development

along coastal shorelines; providing public access to the coast for recreational purposes; and

incorporating public and local coordination for decision-making in coastal areas. This voluntary

federal-state partnership addresses coastal development, water quality, shoreline erosion, public

access, protection of natural resources, energy facility siting, and coastal hazards.

The Federal Consistency provision, contained in Section 307 of the CZMA, allows affected states

to review federal activities to ensure that they are consistent with the state’s coastal zone

management program. This provision also applies to non-federal programs and activities that use

federal funding and that require federal authorization. Any activities that may have an effect on

any land or water use or on any natural resources in the coastal zone must conform to the

enforceable policies of the approved state coastal zone management program. NOAA’s regulations

in 15 CFR Part 930 provide the procedures for arriving at or obtaining a consistency determination.

The CZMA requires that coastal states develop a State Coastal Zone Management Plan or program

and that any federal agency conducting or supporting activities affecting the coastal zone conduct

or support those activities in a manner consistent with the approved state plan or program. To

comply with the CZMA, a federal agency must identify activities that would affect the coastal

zone, including development projects, and review the state coastal zone management plan to

determine whether a proposed activity would be consistent with the plan.

3.6.1.1 Louisiana State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act of 1978

Pursuant to the CZMA, the State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act of 1978 (RS

49:214.21, et seq., Act 1978, No. 361) is the state of Louisiana’s legislation creating the Louisiana

Coastal Resources Program (LCRP). The LCRP establishes policy for activities including

construction in the coastal zone, defines and updates the coastal zone boundary, and creates

regulatory processes. The LCRP is under the authority of the Louisiana Department of Natural

Resources (LDNR) Office of Coastal Management (OCM). Per the CZMA, all proposed federal

projects within the coastal zone must undergo a Consistency Determination by OCM for that

project’s consistency with the state’s Coastal Resources Program, i.e., LCRP (Louisiana

Department of Natural Resources, 2016).

3.6.1.2 Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982

The Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) of 1982 (16 USC 3501 et seq.), administered by

USFWS, was enacted to protect sensitive and vulnerable barrier islands found along the U.S.

Atlantic, Gulf, and Great Lakes coastlines. The CBRA established the Coastal Barrier Resources

System (CBRS), which is composed of undeveloped coastal barrier islands, including those in the

Great Lakes. With limited exceptions, areas contained within a CBRS are ineligible for direct or

indirect federal funds that might support or promote coastal development, thereby discouraging

development in coastal areas.

Otherwise Protected Areas (OPAs) are a category of coastal barriers within the CBRS. OPAs are

undeveloped coastal areas established under Federal, State, or local law or held by a qualified

organization, primarily for wildlife refuge, sanctuary, recreational, or natural resource


conservation purposes. Flood insurance is restricted in OPAs, though OPAs may receive other

forms of Federal Assistance.


All of Orleans Parish, including the Mirabeau project area and the Filmore neighborhood, is within

the regulated coastal zone of Louisiana. It is located entirely within fast lands, which are defined

by the Louisiana State Legislature as “lands surrounded by publicly owned, maintained, or

otherwise validly existing levees, or natural formations, as of the effective date of this Act or as

may be lawfully constructed in the future, which levees or natural formations would normally

prevent activities, not to include the pumping of water for drainage purposes, within the

surrounded area from having direct and significant impacts on coastal waters” (State of Louisiana,

2006). The area is located within the Louisiana Coastal Management Zone (LCMZ) and may

require a Coastal Use Permit (CUP) application. The project area is not located in, or connected

to, a CBRS Unit or otherwise protected area (OPA).



The No Action Alternative would have no effect on the Louisiana Coastal Zone. No permit would

be required.


In a letter dated September 28, 2012, the Louisiana Office of Coastal Management determined that

the granting of financial assistance is fully consistent with the Louisiana Coastal Resources

Program. Per a letter dated April 26, 2017, the Louisiana Office of Coastal Management has

determined in accordance with the State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act of 1978,

as amended (La. R.S. 49:214.34.a), the proposed activity is exempt and a Coastal Use Permit is

not required. This determination is valid for 2 years from the date of this letter. If the proposed

activity is not initiated within this 2-year period, this determination would expire and the applicant

would be required to submit a new application.


Alternative)

In a letter dated September 28, 2012, the Louisiana Office of Coastal Management determined that

the granting of financial assistance is fully consistent with the Louisiana Coastal Resources

Program. Per a letter dated April 26, 2017, the Louisiana Office of Coastal Management has

determined in accordance with the State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act of 1978,

as amended (La. R.S. 49:214.34.a), the proposed activity is exempt and a Coastal Use Permit is

not required. This determination is valid for 2 years from the date of this letter. If the proposed

activity is not initiated within this 2-year period, this determination would expire and the applicant

would be required to submit a new application.

3.7 Biological Resources


The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 USC 1531-1543) prohibits the taking of listed,

threatened, and endangered species unless specifically authorized by permit from USFWS or

National Marine Fisheries (NMFS). “Take” is defined in 16 U.S.C. 1532(19) as "to harass, harm,


pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct.”

“Harm” is further defined to include significant habitat modification or degradation that results in

death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing behavioral patterns such as breeding,

feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3).

Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA requires the lead federal agency to consult with either USFWS or

NMFS, depending which agency has jurisdiction over the federally listed species in question, when

a federally funded project either may have the potential to adversely affect a federally listed

species, or a federal action occurs within or may have the potential to impact designated critical

habitat. The lead agency must consult with USFWS, NMFS, or both (Agencies) as appropriate and

will determine if a biological assessment is necessary to identify potentially adverse effects to

federally listed species, their critical habitat, or both. If a biological assessment is required, it will

be followed by a biological opinion from USFWS, NMFS, or both depending on the jurisdiction

of the federally listed species identified in the biological assessment. If the impacts of a proposed

federal project are considered negligible to federally listed species, the lead agency may instead

prepare a letter to the Agencies with a “May Affect, but Not Likely to Adversely Affect”

determination requesting the relevant agency’s concurrence. This EA serves to identify potential

impacts and meet the ESA Section 7 requirement by ascertaining the risks of the proposed action

and alternatives to known federally listed species and their critical habitat, as well as providing a

means for consultation with the regulatory agencies.

Unless otherwise permitted by regulation, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918

(16 USC 703-712) prohibits pursuing; hunting; taking; capturing; killing; attempting to take,

capture, or kill; possessing; offering for sale; selling; offering to purchase; purchasing; delivering

for shipment; shipping; causing to be shipped; delivering for transportation; transporting; causing

to be transported; carrying or causing to be carried by any means whatever; receiving for shipment,

transportation, or carriage; or exporting; at any time or in any manner, any migratory bird or any

part, nest, or egg of any such bird, that is included on the list of protected bird species. USFWS is

responsible for enforcing the provisions of the MBTA.


The project area is currently a 25 acre greenspace within a developed urban area. The site has

trees, grasses, and shrubs commonly found and maintained in the adjacent urban areas including

an existing grove of oak trees. The vegetation species and animal species present in the area

typically can adapt to an urban/developed environment. These species include raccoon (Procyon

lotor), eastern gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), rabbits (Sylvilagus sp.), rodents (Mus sp. and

Rattus sp.), and various species of birds, snakes, turtles, and amphibians. The site is terrestrial and

has been previously disturbed. No state or federal parks, wildlife refuges, scenic streams, or

wildlife management areas are located within the bounds of the project area.

According to the USFWS website and an official species list provided by the USFWS Louisiana

Ecological Services Field Office (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2017), multiple species listed on

the Federal Endangered Species List occur or potentially occur in Orleans Parish (Appendix D).

Most of these species are aquatic and are thus not expected to be present. Two endangered bird

species, the Piping Plover and the Red Knot, are also known to occur or potentially occur within

Orleans Parish.




The No Action Alternative would include no construction activities in the project area and the

opportunity to provide a more diverse habitat in the area to increase biodiversity in the project area

would be lost. This alternative would result in no significant impacts to urban vegetation or animal

species.


FEMA has determined Alternative 2 would not affect listed species or modify designated critical

habitat in accordance with USFWS stamped letter dated February 08, 2017, and LDWF letter,

dated February 10, 2017 (Appendix D). Long-term beneficial impacts to biological resources

would occur at the site because an increase in habitat variability would have a subsequent increase

in biodiversity at the site. The introduction of shallow aquatic environments would provide habitat

for species of amphibians, reptiles, birds, small mammals, and insects that currently do not inhabit

the site.


Alternative)

FEMA has determined the Preferred Alternative would not affect listed species or modify

designated critical habitat in accordance with USFWS stamped letter dated February 8, 2017, and

LDWF letter dated February 10, 2017 (Appendix D).

Long-term beneficial impacts to biological resources would be similar to those described for

Alternative 2, but additional beneficial impacts would be realized under the Preferred Alternative

as more aquatic habitat would be created.

3.8 Air Quality


The Clean Air Act of 1970 (with 1977 and 1990 Amendments)

The Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 Section 7401 et seq.) regulates air emissions from stationary and

mobile sources. This law tasks the USEPA with establishing primary and secondary air quality

standards. Primary air quality standards protect the public’s health including the health of

“sensitive populations, such as people with asthma, children, and older adults.” Secondary air

quality standards protect the public’s welfare by promoting ecosystem health, preventing

decreased surface visibility, and reducing damage to crops and buildings. The USEPA has also set

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the following six criteria pollutants:

Carbon Monoxide (CO), Lead (Pb), Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), Ozone (O3), Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), and particulate matter less than 10 micrometers (PM10).

According to 40 CFR Section 93.150(a): “No department, agency or instrumentality of the federal

government shall engage in, support in any way, or provide financial assistance for, license or

permit, or approve any activity which does not conform to an applicable implantation plan.” In

addition, the followings section adds: “A federal agency must make a determination that a federal

action conforms to the applicable implementation plan in accordance with the requirements of this


subpart before the action is taken”. As a result, when FEMA provides financial assistance for a

project located in a NAAQS “non-attainment area” for any one of the six criteria pollutants, the

CAA requires and evaluation of the applicability of the General Conformity Rule (GCR).

The GCR currently applies to federal actions that are taken in designated nonattainment or

maintenance areas, with the following exceptions.

(1) Actions covered by the Transportation Conformity Rule

(2) Actions with associate emissions clearly at or below specified de minimis levels

(3) Actions listed as exempt in the rule

(4) Actions covered by an approved “presumed to conform” list (see 40 CFR Section 93.153[c])

GCR de minimis emission thresholds were created by the USEPA with the intent of limiting the

need for General Conformity determination when actions generate minimal emissions. These

thresholds are defined in 40 CFR Section 93.153(b) and represent the maximum level of allowable

emissions to remain within the de minimis exemption, in tons per calendar year for each criteria

pollutant or its precursor compound. De minimis levels for nonattainment areas in Louisiana,

identified in Title 33, Chapter III, Section 1405.B of the Louisiana Administrative Code (LAC

33:III.1405.B), are identical to those defined in the federal statute.


According to The EPA Greenbook (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2017a), Orleans

Parish falls with the Southern Louisiana-Southeast Texas Interstate Air Quality Control Region.

In 2015, Orleans Parish achieved attainment of the NAAQS for ozone (O3). Based on past criteria,

Orleans Parish also achieved attainment of NAAQS for carbon monoxide (CO) levels, sulfur

dioxide (SO2), lead (Pb), particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5), and nitrous oxides

(NOx). Therefore, Orleans Parish has no GCR obligations.



The No action alternative would include no construction activities in the project area. Therefore,

this alternative would result in no adverse impacts to air quality.


A temporary increase in vehicle emissions would result from construction trucks and equipment

during the construction of Alternative 2. However, no long-term or significant impacts to air

quality are anticipated. Currently, Orleans Parish is classified as in NAAQS attainment and has no

general conformity determination obligations.


Alternative)

As with Alternative 2, a temporary increase in vehicle emissions would result from construction

trucks and equipment during the construction of the proposed project under the preferred

alternative. However, no long-term or significant impacts to air quality are anticipated for the

preferred alternative. Currently, Orleans Parish is classified as in NAAQS attainment and has no

GCR determination obligations, per a letter from LDEQ dated May 16, 2017 (Appendix D).


To reduce emissions of air pollution from equipment during construction, fuel-burning equipment

times should be kept to a minimum and engines should be properly maintained. Airborne dust

control measures should be implemented during construction as well.

3.9 Noise


Noise is defined as unwanted sound, indicating that perceived noise impacts are inherently

subjective. Measured in terms of air pressure, sound intensity spans several orders of magnitude.

As a result, the response of the human ear to sound is best represented by a logarithmic scale rather

than a linear scale.

The basic unit of measure on this logarithmic scale is the decibel (dB), and various weighted dB

scales (A, B, C) are used to approximate how people perceive different types of sounds (U.S.

Federal Transit Administration, 2006) (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974). Noise level

(volume) is generally measured in dB using the A-weighted sound pressure level (dBA). The A-

weighted scale is an adjustment to be consistent with that of human hearing, which is most

sensitive to frequencies around 4,000 hertz (roughly comparable to the highest note on a piano)

and less sensitive to low frequencies (below 100 hertz).

In addition to the instantaneous measurement of sound levels, the duration of sound is important.

Sounds that occur over a long period of time are more likely to be an annoyance or cause direct

physical damage or environmental stress. One of the more commonly used noise metrics that

considers duration as well as sound power level is the equivalent noise level (Leq). The Leq is

defined as the steady A-weighted level equivalent to the same amount of energy as that contained

in the actual time-varying levels over a period of time. Typically, Leq is summed over a 1-hour

period (U.S. Federal Transit Administration, 2006).

Average acceptable day-night sound levels fall in a range between 50 dBA in quiet suburban areas

to 70 DBA in noisier urban areas (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974). The day-night

sound level is a cumulative metric that accounts for the total sound energy occurring over a 24-

hour period, with nighttime noise (occurring from 10 pm to 7 am) more heavily weighted to reflect

community sensitivity during nighttime hours. A sound level of 75 dBA is generally considered

unacceptable in urban areas, with 85 dBA being unacceptable in industrial areas (United States

Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD], 2018).

Sound is federally regulated by the Noise Control Act of 1972, which charges the USEPA with

preparing guidelines for acceptable ambient noise levels. USEPA guidelines, and those of many

other federal agencies, state that outdoor sound levels more than 55 dBA are “normally

unacceptable” for noise-sensitive land uses including residences, schools, or hospitals (U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 1974).

Within Orleans Parish, the noise control program is administered through the combined efforts of

the Department of Health and the Police Department. Orleans Parish has regulations concerning

noise in the Code of Ordinances, Chapter 66, Article IV, 66-136. It is unlawful to operate power

equipment between the hours of 10:00 pm and 7:00 am on weekdays, and between 10:00 pm and

8:00 am on weekends. However, installation and maintenance of public and private utilities, as

well as construction activities for which a permit has been issued, are limited to work between the

hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. in areas that are zoned as residential. During those hours, none


of the noise produced by machinery less than 5 horsepower shall exceed 75 dBA, and machinery

over 5 horsepower shall not exceed 82 dBA.

The City of New Orleans Noise Ordinance (Section 66) places restrictions on any source of sound

exceeding the maximum permissible sound level based on the time of day and the zoning district

within which the sound is emitted. A number of exemptions exist for certain types of activities,

however. In accordance with the City’s Noise Ordinance Section 66-138, noises “from

construction and demolition activities for which a building permit has been issued by the

department of safety and permits are exempt from” maximum permissible sound level restrictions

“between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m., except in those areas zoned as RS [Single-Family],

RD [Two-Family], or RM [Multi-Family] residential districts. Construction and/or demolition

activities shall not begin before 7:00 a.m. or continue after 6:00 p.m. in areas zoned as RS, RD, or

RM residential districts, or within 300 feet of such residential districts. Mufflers on construction

equipment shall be maintained” (City of New Orleans, 2018).


The proposed project is located within a residential area and surrounded by sensitive receptors

(i.e., homes, schools, medical facilities, and churches). As such, the average day-night sound

pressure levels would be expected to be between the 40 dBA to 50 dBA range due to the residential

and public-use nature of the area.



Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no short- or long-term impact on the noise

environment because no construction would occur.


Alternative 2 would not cause any long-term noise impacts to the surrounding area. Construction

activities would cause a short-term increase in noise levels. However, they would not exceed noise

levels stated in parish ordinances (82 dBA). Equipment and machinery utilized on the project sites

would be expected to meet all local, state, and federal noise regulations. All activities located in

RS, RD or RM zones, or within 300 feet of such residential districts shall not begin before 7:00

a.m. or continue after 6:00 p.m. Due to the temporary nature of these activities and the applicable

City of New Orleans Noise Ordinance, noise would not exceed the maximum permissible sound

level based on the time of day and the zoning district within which the sound is emitted, and long-

term noise effects would not occur.

Noise associated with construction projects is difficult to predict because heavy machinery is

constantly moving in irregular patterns. However, the approximate sound levels associated with

each noise source (i.e., each piece of heavy equipment) are listed in the “Transit Noise and

Vibration Impact Assessment” manual (U.S. Federal Transit Administration, 2006). Table 3 lists

average noise levels by vehicle type. The noise impacts associated with construction of the

Mirabeau Water Garden would occur during daylight hours, and the vast majority of the noise

would be created from sources more than 50 feet from inhabited structures.


Table 3 Average Noise Levels by Vehicle

Equipment Usage Factor (%)1 Typical Noise Level (dBA) 50 feet from Source2

Air Compressor 40 81

Backhoe 40 80

Mobile Crane 16 83

Excavator 40 85

Loader 40 85

1 (U.S. Federal Highway Administration , 2006)

2 (U.S. Federal Transit Administration, 2006)


Alternative)

The Preferred Alternative would not cause any long-term noise impacts to the surrounding area.

Construction activities under this alternative are expected to be similar to those described in

Alternative 2, and would, therefore, cause a similar, short-term increase in noise levels. However,

because offsite noise receptors are located more than 50 feet from the sound sources, they would

not experience noise levels that exceed the applicable limit stated in parish ordinances (82 dBA).

3.10 Traffic and Parking


The City of New Orleans Department of Public Works maintains approximately 1,547 miles of

streets and 149 bridges in the City of New Orleans including all the streets in the project area.

According to the Department of Public Work’s website; “The Department of Public Works’

mission is to construct and maintain the highest quality of safe and sustainable transportation

facilities for users of vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian and rail transportation, in order to improve the

quality of life and create opportunities for economic development for all New Orleanians” (City

of New Orleans, 2017). Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LDOTD) is

responsible for developing and maintaining public transportation, state highways, interstate

highways under state jurisdiction, airports and heliports, railways, waterways, and bridges located

within the state of Louisiana.


The project area is bounded by Mirabeau Avenue to the North, Cartier Avenue to the east, Owens

Boulevard to the south, and St. Bernard Avenue to the west. Since the project area encompasses

nearly the entire block bounded by these four streets, no cross-streets exist for consideration. The

four streets bounding the project location are in various states of disrepair following repeated

flooding events.

The only roadway with available traffic data from either LDOTD or New Orleans Regional

Planning Council (NORPC) is Mirabeau Avenue. Based on 2008 statistics, the average daily

traffic (ADT) count at the corner of Mirabeau and Wisner Boulevard was 1,824 vehicles per day

in 2008. Where Mirabeau Avenue crosses the London Avenue Canal, average traffic counts were


much higher. The Mirabeau Avenue ADT at London Canal was 3,978 vehicles per day in 2008.

Since Mirabeau Avenue is a divided roadway, only eastbound traffic might experience any

incidental issues.



The No Action Alternative would include no construction activities in the project area. Therefore,

this alternative would have no impact on traffic or roadways at any location near the site.


Implementation of Alternative 2 would require heavy trucks and machinery for moving large

volumes of soil and bringing in materials such as hay bales, silt fencing, geotextiles, stakes, plants,

and hardware. A temporary increase in construction traffic may affect traffic circulation patterns

and motorists’ perception of traffic movement. There would be temporary disruptions in traffic

flow of the streets bordering the project area (Mirabeau Avenue, Cartier Street, Owens Boulevard,

and St. Bernard Avenue). No significant increase in traffic is expected under Alternative 2.

The contractor would be responsible for handling all traffic control and warning in accordance

with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (23 CFR 655, subpart F), including placing

signs and signals in advance of construction activities in order to alert pedestrians and motorists

of the upcoming work and traffic pattern changes (e.g., detours or lanes dedicated for construction

equipment egress). There may be times when certain streets would be closed to all but local traffic

and rerouting of through traffic to alternate roads might become necessary. The contractor would

be expected to provide a traffic control schedule prior to commencing construction.


Alternative)

Impacts to traffic and parking from implementation of the Preferred Alternative would be similar

to those described for Alternative 2, because the project area and construction intensity would be

similar.

3.11 Historic and Cultural Resources


The consideration of impacts to historic and cultural resources is mandated under Section 101(b)4

of NEPA as implemented by 40 CFR 1501-1508. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation

Act (NHPA) requires Federal agencies to take into account their effects on historic properties (i.e.,

historic and cultural resources, including American Indian Cultural Sites) and allows the Advisory

Council on Historic Preservation an opportunity to comment. Additionally, it is policy of the

Federal government to consult with Indian Tribal Governments on a Government-to-Government

basis as required in EO 13175. FEMA has chosen to address potential impacts to historic

properties through the Section 106 consultation process of NHPA as implemented through 36 CFR

Part 800.

The “Section 106 process” requires the identification of historic properties that may be affected by

the proposed action or alternatives within the project’s Area of Potential Effects (APE). Historic

properties, defined in Section 101(a)(1)(A) of the NHPA, include districts, sites (archaeological

and religious/cultural), buildings, structures, and objects that are listed in or determined eligible


for listing in the National Register of Historical Places (NRHP). Historic properties are identified

by qualified agency representatives in consultation with interested parties

To fulfill its Section 106 responsibilities, FEMA has initiated consultation on this project in

accordance with the Louisiana Programmatic Agreement Among the FEMA, the Louisiana State

Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), the Governor’s Office Of Homeland Security and

Emergency Preparedness (GOHSEP), and Participating Tribes (PA), executed on December 21,

2016 (Federal Emergency Management Agency, Louisiana State Historic Preservation Officer, the

Governor’s Office Of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness, Participating Tribes,

2016). The PA streamlines the Section 106 review process for all FEMA funded projects in

Louisiana


Cultural resources in the project area were identified by reviewing the NRHP database; the

Louisiana Cultural Resources Map provided by the Louisiana Division of Archaeology, historic

map research, FEMA’s internal Section 106 files, a site visit (conducted on May 18, 2016) and a

Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation (completed in April 2016).

The Mirabeau Gardens Drainage area is located along the backslope of the Mississippi River’s

natural levee and historically would have been characterized as backswamp or marsh until forced

drainage of the area into newly created drainage canals began in the twentieth century. The

development of the “Lakeshore” area of New Orleans began slowly and primarily occurred near

the lakefront area and to the east of the London Avenue Canal. It was not until the 1940s when

the St. Bernard Housing Development opened that the neighborhood near the project area began

to develop.

The subdivisions that now make up the Filmore neighborhood (Bayou Vista / Parish Oaks) were

not developed until after 1945, when soldiers returning home from World War II created a housing

demand nationwide. New Orleans, like many urban areas in the United States developed rapidly

during the pos-war building boom. Sometime between 1940 and 1951, houses began to appear

along Cartier Avenue (Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of New Orleans, Volume 10 1937, updated

1951; Sanborn Map Company). After 1951, residential development continued around the project

area and in 1952 construction was completed on the Novitiate House for The Sisters of St. Joseph

of Medaille located on the north end of the 25-acre tract of land where the Mirabeau Drainage

Garden is proposed. Subsequently, the Sisters of St. Joseph commissioned the construction of a

Provincial House (in 1956) and an Infirmary (in 1981).

Following Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the Mirabeau Garden tract and the surrounding project area,

like much of New Orleans, was inundated with flood waters. The Sisters of St. Joseph began work

to clean up the campus; however, in June 2006, the Provincial House was struck by lightning and

caught fire. The campus was subsequently demolished in 2008 and only remnants related to the

former Sisters of St. Joseph facility remain within the project area (including streets, sidewalks,

drains, a small stone grotto, and a portion of terrazzo floor bearing the crest of the Sisters of St.

Joseph and the walled entrance).




Implementing the No Action Alternative would result in the continuation of flooding in the project

area including any cultural resources. This alternative does not include a FEMA undertaking;

therefore, FEMA has no further responsibilities under Section 106 of NHPA.


A Phase I Cultural Resources survey of the project area was conducted. The survey resulted in a

negative findings report, meaning no archaeological properties eligible for listing the NRHP were

identified and no further investigation is necessary. Subsequently, FEMA determined no standing

structures within or adjacent to the project area are listed on or eligible for listing on the NRHP

and no historic properties would be affected by the construction of the Mirabeau Water Garden.

FEMA consulted with the SHPO and affected Tribes regarding the undertaking in a letter dated 2

June 2016. FEMA received SHPO concurrence with the determination that no historic properties

would be affected on 10 June 2016. Consultation with affected Tribes (the Alabama-Coushatta

Tribe of Texas, Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana, Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, Coushatta Tribe of

Louisiana, Jena Band of Choctaw Indians, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Muscogee Creek

Nation; Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, Seminole Tribe of Florida, and the Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of

Louisiana) was conducted per 36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)(i)(B). The Muscogee Creek Nation (MCN)

submitted written concurrence with the determination. The remaining Tribes did not respond

within the regulatory timeframes; therefore, in accordance with Stipulation II.C.4 of the PA and

36 CFR part 800.5(c)1.


Alternative)

The Phase I Cultural Resources survey and determination of no historic properties is applicable to

Alternative 3. Since no historic properties were identified within the APE, Alternative 3, like

Alternative 2, would not affect any historic properties.

3.12 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice


EO 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-

Income Populations requires a federal agency to “make achieving environmental justice part of its

mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionally high human health or

environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low

income populations.”

Environmental Justice is defined as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people-

regardless of race, color, national origin, culture, education, or income—in the development,

implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies.” (Federal

Emergency Management Agency, 2012). FEMA further defines fair treatment as “no racial, ethnic,

or socioeconomic group should bear a share of negative consequences resulting from industrial,

municipal, and commercial operations, or the execution of federal, state, local and tribal

environmental programs and policies”.

According to the CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality, 1997a), a minority individual is a

member of the following population groups: American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian or Pacific


Islander, Black, not of Hispanic origin, or Hispanic. A minority population is identified where

either a) the minority population of the affected area exceeds 50 percent or b) the minority

population percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority population

percentage in the general population. Race and ethnicity are two separate categories of minority

populations. A minority population can be defined by race, by ethnicity, or by a combination of

the two distinct classifications.


The immediate project area is uninhabited with no housing units located within its boundaries. The

project area consists of 25 acres within the 416-acre US Census Bureau Census Tract 33.02 (census

tract). Therefore, the demographic data available for this census tract has been used for the analysis

of Socioeconomic and Environmental Justice effects. Census Tract 33.02 is located within zip code

70122. Demographic data presented below was acquired online using the USEPA Environmental

Justice Screening and Mapping Tool (USEPA, 2017).

The population of the entire census tract is 3,476 individuals. Of these, 1,356 individuals (39%

percent of the total population) are considered low-income, which is 8 percentage points less than

the overall percentage for Orleans Parish. The minority population in the census tract comprises

92 percent of the population, and 88 percent of the population identified as African-American,

while the remaining 12 percent is comprised of Hispanic, Caucasian, and Asian people, as well as

some that identify as belonging to two or more races. The minority population in the census tract

is 21 percentage points higher than the overall minority population of Orleans Parish. Also, the

census tract has a substantially higher percentage of owner-occupied homes, and a lower

unemployed percentage, than does Orleans Parish. Additionally, of those 16 years or older, the

census tract unemployment rate of 3 percent is lower than the 6 percent of all individuals in Orleans

Parish. This census information is summarized in Table 4.


In compliance with EO 12898, the following key questions were addressed regarding potential

Environmental Justice concerns:

Is there an impact caused by the proposed action? Yes

Is the impact adverse? No

Is the impact disproportionate? No

Has an action been undertaken without considerable input

by the affected low-income and/or minority community? No


Because the proposed projects would not be implemented, the No Action Alternative would not

cause disproportionally high human health or environmental effects on minority populations

and/or low income populations. Flooding of streets could prevent community members from

leaving their homes and going to work or school causing loss of income and absences from school.

With each flooding event, community resources must be spent to repair and restore damaged

properties and vehicles.


Table 4: Demographic and Economic Information for the Census Tract In Which the Project Area is

Located and for Orleans Parish. (USEPA, 2017)

2011-2015

Estimate for

Mirabeau Water

Garden Census

Tract 33.02

Percentage

of

Population

in Mirabeau

Water

Garden

Census Tract

33.02

2011-2015

Estimate for

Orleans Parish

Percentage of

Population in

Orleans

Parish

Total Population 3,476 100% 376,738 100%

Minority Population 3,192 92% 268,144 71%

Households 1,234 Not

Provided 153,140 Not Provided

Housing Units 1,504 Not


Owner-Occupied

Housing Units

987 80%

70,853 46%

Renter-Occupied

Housing Units

247 20%

82,297 56%

Low Income 1,356 39% 177,067 47%

Population Ages 16-64 2,688 Not


Labor Force Employed

(civilian) 1,733 65% 190,715 62%

Labor Force

Unemployed (civilian) 90 3% 19,523 6%


Storm water management is a problem throughout the city of New Orleans. As part of the effort

to update the 2010 Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Mitigation Plan, an updated and expanded

planning process was used to review and select sites for FEMA HMGP funded drainage projects

as well as other projects. Sites, including the Mirabeau Water Garden project, were selected based

on many factors including flood risk, available land, drainage rates. This planning process included

various stakeholders from across the city of New Orleans and is described in the in the background

and public involvement sections of this EA.

Implementing Alternative 2 would have long-term beneficial effects for the residents surrounding

the project area regardless of their racial makeup or economic situation. The Filmore neighborhood

has been susceptible to flooding events in the past. Drainage improvements would reduce


resources expended on flooding response and recovery. Public Notice to the affected communities

has been and would continue to be provided.

Under Alternative 2, there could be short-term, minor adverse impacts on populations living in the

project area during construction of the project. Impacts might include increased noise levels and

traffic disruptions associated with construction activities. Noise and traffic disruptions would be

temporary and consistent with construction activities typically found in urban areas.

The implementation of Alternative 2 would not have disproportionately high adverse impacts on

minority or low-income groups in the project area.


Alternative)

As with Alternative 2, the Preferred Alternative would have long-term positive effects for the

residents of the project area regardless of their racial makeup or economic situation. Under

Alternative 3, there could be short-term, minor adverse impacts on populations living in the project

area during construction of the project. Impacts might include increased noise levels and traffic

disruptions associated with construction activities. Noise and traffic disruptions would be

temporary and consistent with construction activities typically found in urban areas.

Implementation of the Preferred Alternative would not have disproportionately high adverse

impacts on minority of low-income groups in the project area. The CNO maintains a resilience

website, https://nola.gov/resilience/ where it updates project information. The CNO has also held

several public meetings for citizens to voice their concerns regarding the project, including a

meeting in August 2017 at the nearby Arthur Ashe School on Gardena Drive. Information

regarding these meetings may be found in the Public Involvement section of this EA. CNO is

required to update the community of any future test results that have the potential to impact the

community.

3.13 Hazardous Material


The management of hazardous materials is regulated under various federal and state environmental

and transportation laws and regulations, including but not limited to the Resource Conservation

and Recovery Act (RCRA); the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and

Liability Act (CERCLA); the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); the Emergency Planning and

Community Right-to-Know provisions of the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act

(SARA); the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act; and the Louisiana Voluntary Investigation

and Remedial Action statute. The purpose of the regulatory requirements set forth under these

laws is to ensure the protection of human health and the environment through proper management

(identification, use, storage, treatment, transport, and disposal) of these materials. Some of the

laws provide for the investigation and cleanup of sites already contaminated by releases of

hazardous materials, wastes, or substances.

TSCA (codified at 15 USC 53), authorizes the USEPA to protect the public from “unreasonable

risk of injury to health or the environment” by regulating the introduction, manufacture,

importation, sale, use, and disposal of specific new or already existing chemicals. Existing

chemicals include any chemical currently listed under Section 8(b), including polychlorinated

biphenyls (PCBs), asbestos, radon, lead-based paint, chlorofluorocarbons, dioxin, and hexavalent

chromium.


TSCA Subchapter I, “Control of Toxic Substances” (Sections 2601-2629), regulates the disposal

of PCB-containing products, sets limits for PCB levels present within the environment, and

authorizes the remediation of sites contaminated with PCBs. Subchapter II, “Asbestos Hazard

Emergency Response” (Sections 2641-2656), authorizes the USEPA to impose requirements for

asbestos abatement in schools and requires accreditation of those who inspect asbestos-containing

materials. Subchapter IV, “Lead Exposure Reduction” (Sections 2681-2692), requires USEPA to

identify sources of lead contamination in the environment, to regulate the amounts of lead allowed

in products, and to establish state programs that monitor and reduce lead exposure.


A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the 1200 Block of Mirabeau Avenue was conducted

in 2015 (Appendix G). Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) provided a Phase I

Environmental Site Assessment report of known hazardous material sites near the project area

(Figure 10). Based on records produced by EDR, the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment

concluded that there were no hazardous conditions present that could disrupt or become disturbed

by construction activities on the site. A review of LDEQ and USEPA databases confirmed the

assessment. A list of nearby sites analyzed as part of the Environmental Site Assessment is

provided below (Materials Management Group, Inc., 2015)

1. One nearby RCRA Small Quantity Generator was identified:

Bob’s Foreign Car Service, 1553 Wakefield Place, located 0.235 miles east of the project site.

LDEQ Agency Interest (AI) Number associated with this facility is 6202. The most recent

available report associated with this facility is dated April 5, 1995.

2. One US Brownfield site was identified:

Gas Station, 1555 Mirabeau Avenue, located 0.233 miles east-northeast of the project site. No

LDEQ AI Number associated with this facility could be identified.

3. EDR records included one dry cleaner within 0.25 miles of the project site:

Soap Opera, 1530 Mirabeau Avenue, located 0.203 miles east-northeast of the project site.

LDEQ AI Number associated with this facility is 39496. The most recent available report

associated with this facility is dated April 25, 1995

4. EDR identified four historical automotive service stations within 0.25 miles of project site.

5. EDR identified three historical dry cleaners within 0.25 miles of the project site.



The No Action alternative would include no construction activities in the project area. Therefore,

this alternative would not disturb or contact any hazardous materials or create any potential hazards

to human or environmental health.


A review of conditions indicated that no hazardous materials are likely present at the project site.

Hazardous materials typically related to construction activities (e.g., petroleum, oils, and/or

lubricants [POLs]) may be used during the conduction of the Mirabeau Water Garden. Short-term


Figure 10 Phase I ESA summary map of known hazardous material site near project location.


adverse impacts associated with the use of POLs during construction could occur if these materials

are spilled or leaked onto the ground surface at the project area. If POLs spill or leak during

construction, appropriate measures would be used to properly clean the area where the spill or leak

occurred, in accordance with state and federal SWPPP implementation requirements. During

operation of the Mirabeau Water Garden, hazardous materials may be used for general

maintenance, including, but not necessarily limited to, pesticides, herbicides, paints, and POLs.

No significant quantities of hazardous materials would be stored at the project site, and no

significant effects of hazardous material use are anticipated.


Alternative)

Because construction and operations under the preferred alternative would be similar to those

under Alternative 2, impacts from hazardous materials are expected to be similar to those described

under Alternative 2. Hazardous materials typically associated with construction activities (e.g.,

POLs) may be used during the conduction of the Mirabeau Water Garden. Short-term adverse

impacts associated with the use of POLs during construction could occur if these materials are

spilled or leaked onto the ground surface at the project area. If POLs spill or leak during

construction, appropriate measures would be used to properly clean the area where the spill or leak

occurred, in accordance with state and federal SWPPP implementation requirements. During

operation of the Mirabeau Water Garden, hazardous materials may be used for general

maintenance, including, but not necessarily limited to, pesticides, herbicides, paints, and POLs.

No significant quantities of hazardous materials would be stored at the project site, and no

significant effects of hazardous material use are anticipated. CNO is required to update the

community of any future groundwater or soil tests results that have the potential to impact the

community.

3.14 Public Safety


As a matter of public health and safety, an integrated mosquito management approach is used by

the CNO Mosquito, Termite, and Rodent Control Board. The need for organized mosquito

abatement operations in the city of New Orleans has been driven by a habitat uniquely suited to

produce overwhelming mosquito populations, disease epidemics, and public outcry. Historically,

these efforts have proved successful with no human cases of Yellow fever reported in the city of

New Orleans after 1905. In the years that followed, public attention turned from Yellow fever to

Malaria. Formal malaria eradication efforts, led by the United States Department of Health Public

Health Service, continued in New Orleans until 1954.


The project location does not collect standing water that could breed mosquitoes.



The No Action alternative would include no construction activities in the project area. Therefore,

this alternative would not create any additional standing water that could breed mosquitoes.



As a matter of public health and safety, an integrated mosquito management approach is used by

the CNO Mosquito, Termite, and Rodent Control Board. This involves vector population

surveillance, public education, larval mosquito habitat reduction, and chemical control of larval

and adult mosquitoes. Larval source reduction (i.e., the physical elimination of larval breeding

sites) involves inspection and removal of man-made containers, clutter, and trash. For sites that

cannot be removed or drained, biorational larvicides (i.e., pesticides that are relatively non-toxic

to people with few environmental side effects) are used to target early mosquito stages. Adult

mosquitoes can be treated at the yard-, block-, or residential level using a variety of equipment.

An understanding of the basic biology of mosquitoes and the factors that influence their density is

used to effectively implement Integrated Pest Management for mosquito control. Integrated Pest

Management incorporates a continual process of monitoring, sampling, and surveillance to observe

changes in the mosquito population density, diversity, ecology, and behavior.

The aim of vector monitoring is to define a guide for effective and efficient mosquito control

interventions. Mosquito surveillance can target any life stage; egg, larvae, pupae, adult. Green

infrastructure projects such as the proposed Mirabeau Water Garden are included in routine survey,

surveillance, and mosquito control sites.

Additionally, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization, Bayou Land Resource Conservation and

Development (RC&D) Council, has partnered with the New Orleans Mosquito Rodent & Termite

Control Board and with Water Works L3C, a low-profit limited-liability company (L3C), to aid in

mosquito control specifically in green infrastructure projects. According to their website, the goals

of the project aim to:

Monitor green infrastructure sites to ensure that these areas are: draining properly,

improving water quality parameters, and are not providing mosquito breeding habitats

Increase citizen understanding of green infrastructure (GI) opportunities and limitations

Increase citizen engagement with GI from the lot to the neighborhood level

Provide managers with technical guidance which will inform MS4 program and support

design criteria identified in local policies and ordinances.


Alternative)

As similarly described for Alternative 2, with implementation of Alternative 3, an integrated

mosquito management approach would be used by the CNO Mosquito, Termite, and Rodent

Control Board. Green infrastructure projects such as the proposed Mirabeau Water Garden are

included in routine survey, surveillance, and mosquito control sites.

4.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

The most severe environmental degradation may not result from the direct effects of any particular

action, but from the combination of effects of multiple, independent actions over time. As defined

in 40 CFR 1508.7 (CEQ Regulations), a cumulative effect is the impact on the environment that

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. Principles of cumulative effects analysis are described in the CEQ guide,

“Considering Cumulative Effects under the National Environmental Policy Act” (Council on

Environmental Quality, 1997b). CEQ guidance on cumulative impacts analysis states that,

“For cumulative impacts analysis to help the decision-maker and inform interested parties,

it must be limited through scoping to effects that can be evaluated meaningfully. The

boundaries for evaluating cumulative impacts should be expanded to the point at which the

resource is no longer affected significantly or the impacts are no longer of interest to

affected parties” (Council on Environmental Quality, 2006).

Not all potential issues identified during cumulative effects scoping need be included in an EA.

Because some effects may be irrelevant or inconsequential to decisions about the proposed action

and alternatives, the focus of the cumulative effects analysis should be narrowed to important

issues of national, regional, or local significance. To assist agencies in this narrowing process,

CEQ (Council on Environmental Quality, 1997b) provides a list of several basic questions to be

considered, including:

(1) Is the proposed action one of several similar past, present, or future actions in the same

geographic area?

(2) Do other activities (governmental or private) in the region have environmental effects similar

to those of the proposed action?

(3) Have any recent or ongoing NEPA analyses of similar or nearby actions identified important

adverse or beneficial cumulative effect issues?

(4) Has the impact been historically significant, such that the importance of the resource is defined

by past loss, past gain, or investments to restore resources?

It is normally insufficient when conducting a cumulative effects analysis to merely analyze effects

within the immediate area of the proposed action. Geographic boundaries should be expanded for

cumulative effects analysis and conducted on the scale of human communities, landscapes,

watersheds, or airsheds. Temporal frames should be extended to encompass additional effects on

the resources, ecosystems, and human communities of concern. A useful concept in determining

appropriate geographic boundaries for a cumulative effects analysis is the project impact zone, that

is, the area (and resources within that area) that could be affected by the proposed action. The area

appropriate for analysis of cumulative effects will, in most instances, be a larger geographic area

occupied by resources outside of the project impact zone (Council on Environmental Quality,

1997b).

The proposed project area is centered at latitude 30.003405, longitude -90.082120 in zip code

70122. FEMA established the list of resource categories to analyze cumulative effects based upon

how the project affected certain resources analyzed within this EA and determined the

environmental resources that have the potential for cumulative effects include; socioeconomic and

the floodplain or hydrology. FEMA has determined that the affected portions of the SWBNO

drainage basins constitute an appropriate boundary for a cumulative impact analysis of the

proposed action and the alternatives since the storm water for the project area outfalls to both DPS

3 and DPS 4. This study area is comprised of three parts: the western section of DPS 4 drainage

area from the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal to the London Avenue Canal, the northern section of

DPS 3 drainage area above Harrison Avenue, and the undesignated district from Mirabeau Avenue


to Stars and Stripes Boulevard (Figure 11). The study area for cumulative impacts is approximately

7.4 square miles and includes zip codes 70122, 70126 and 70148. This area was chosen largely

Figure 11 A map showing FEMA-funded projects within the Cumulative Impacts Study area.

due to potential impacts to the floodplain or watershed. Other projects that have the potential to

have a socioeconomic impact, such as traffic, noise, and air quality were analyzed within the study

area but a closer range, within a radius of 0.5 miles from the project site.

In Orleans Parish, over 8,000 FEMA program-funded emergency protective measures, repair

projects and hazard mitigation projects have occurred, are occurring, or are reasonably foreseen to

occur to buildings, recreational and educational facilities, public utilities, and waterways in the

time period August 2005 through June 2017. Figure 11 depicts 90 FEMA-funded undertakings

that fall within or intersect the study area, representing an obligated amount of over $88.8 million

for two FEMA disasters. Eighty-six of the 90 project sites inside the study area were Public

Assistance grants, and the majority of these were educational facilities.


Grants for Public Assistance projects fell under two categories: Category B, Emergency Protective

Measures (37%) and Category E, Public Buildings (59%). Three of the 90 FEMA-funded project

sites are associated with HMGP storm water management projects:

Dillard University Mitigation Project – A link to additional information about this project is:

https://www.fema.gov/ar/media-library/assets/documents/117620

Pontilly Water Mitigation – A link to additional information about this project is:

https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/161710

Bayou St. John Drainage Project – A link to additional information about this project is:


The Bayou St. John project drains into the same pump stations as the Mirabeau Water Garden

project. FEMA is also funding nearly 2 billion dollars of infrastructure improvements throughout

the city of New Orleans to include road and utility repair and replacement. Table 5 represents

projects FEMA has identified that have the potential to affect resources cumulatively with this

project including the planned infrastructure work within a 0.5-mile radius from the project site.

4.1 Environmental Consequences

The proposed and foreseeable mitigation projects are expected to fulfill the purposes of the projects

by mitigating flooding up to the 10-year, 24-hour storm and therefore reducing the loss of property

during these events. The number and size of NFIP claims is expected to be reduced within the

project areas. The combined population of the HMGP project areas comprises approximately 14

percent of the population in the affected drainage basins of DPS 3 and DPS 4 (United States

Enviromental Protection Agency, 2017). However, additional benefits are projected to occur

outside the project areas. The project analyzed in this EA is also intended to reduce the load on

DPS 3 and DPS 4. Additional benefits include the capture of on-site rainfall, water infiltration

into soils in a subsidence prone area, and the creation of wetlands (Waggoner & Ball, 2018).

In summary, the cumulative effect of these present, past, and reasonably foreseeable future actions

is not anticipated to result in a significant impact to environmental resources. Each of the projects

analyzed either aims to restore or improve the function of pre-existing infrastructure within an

urban setting or proposes redevelopment consistent with current zoning requirements, with

minimal impacts to the natural and human environment occurring cumulatively with the proposed

project. Likewise, the project in combination with other drainage projects within the study area

would have a positive impact on the natural and human environment by reducing flooding and

restoring floodplain values.

https://www.fema.gov/ar/media-library/assets/documents/117620




Table 5 Projects Identified as Having Potential to Contribute to Cumulative impacts

Project

Name/Status

Lead

Agency Location Description

Cumulative

Impact Rationale

Gentilly

Resilience

District

CNO,

FEMA,

SWBNO and

HUD

Throughout

drainage basin 4

Designed spaces to

capture rainwater using

green infrastructure and

other techniques

Minimal/

beneficial

The project is designed to improve floodplain conditions by

improving natural values of floodplain and drainage in the

basin.

Mirabeau Water

Garden

FEMA

(HMGP),

CNO, and

HUD

1200 Mirabeau

Avenue

Installation of educational

components at the

Mirabeau Water Garden

Minimal/

beneficial

Project would promote floodplain and storm water

sewerage educational opportunities to the residents of New

Orleans.

Bayou St. John

(Hagan Lafitte)

Drainage

Project

FEMA

Portion of the

Bayou St. John

neighborhood

bordered by North

Broad Street,

Orleans Avenue,

Bayou St. John,

and the St. Louis

Canal / Lafitte

Greenway

Installation of green and

gray drainage

infrastructure including

an underground water

storage feature at Warren

Easton Park

Minimal/

beneficial

Minimal impact, Cultural Resource Impacts are site

specific. Similar to Mirabeau this project is designed to

reduce flow into DPS 3 and DPS 4 and therefore should

have a positive impact on the floodplain

Pontilly Storm

water

Mitigation

FEMA

(HMGP),

and CNO

Pontchartrain

Park and Gentilly

Woods

neighborhoods

Installation of green and

gray drainage

infrastructure

Minimal/

beneficial



basin.

Dillard

University

Drainage

Project/in

construction

FEMA

(HMGP)

2601 Gentilly

Blvd.

New Orleans, LA

70122

Upgrades to surface and

subsurface campus

drainage system, linked to

the London Avenue Canal

Minimal /

beneficial



basin.

SWBNO

Reconstruction/

Elevation and

Hardening of

Nine Sewage

Pump Stations/

complete

FEMA/

SWBNO

Throughout the

City

Reconstruction, elevation

and hardening of nine

sewage pump stations

Minimal This project is designed to mitigate against flooding.


Project

Name/Status

Lead


Cumulative

Impact Rationale

SWBNO Pump

Stations USACE

Throughout

Orleans Parish

Drainage pump station

repairs and elevation Minimal

The project is designed to mitigate against flooding and

work in tandem with the proposed and considered

alternatives.

Filmore South

Group A

infrastructure

repairs Future

(2017- 2018)

CNO and

FEMA

St. Bernard Ave,

Gardena, Riviera,

Mirabeau,

Bancroft,

Wakefield,

Westbrook, Paula

Repairs of damaged

roads, sidewalks, and

curbs

Minimal

Construction would not affect drainage in the area and

would cumulatively have a positive impact on

infrastructure within the project area. Project would have

some temporary impacts to traffic. This would be

minimized by BMP.

Filmore South

Group B Future

(2017- 2018)

CNO and

FEMA

Cartier Ave. and

Owens Blvd,

Gardena Dr., St.

Bernard Avenue,

Davey and

Cadilla St.

Repairs and replacement

of utilities, sidewalks, and

road

Minimal





minimized by BMP.

Filmore South

Group C Future

(2020-2021)

CNO and

FEMA

Seville Drive,

Bancroft Drive,

and Granada

Drive



road

Minimal





minimized by BMP.

Filmore South

Group D Future

(2021-2022)

CNO and

FEMA

Davey, Cadillac,

Carnot, Gardena,

Wellington,

Kennon,

Randolph, Pratt,

St. Bernard



road

Minimal





minimized by BMP.


Project

Name/Status

Lead


Cumulative

Impact Rationale

Repairs and

reconstruction

of critical

physical

infrastructure

(Past, Present

and Future)

FEMA

Throughout

Orleans Parish

metropolitan area

including Orleans,

Jefferson, St.

Bernard,

Plaquemines, St.

Tammany, St.

Charles, and St.

John the Baptist

parishes

Repairs, reconstruction,

and improvements to

critical infrastructure such

as hospitals, schools, fire

stations, utilities,

government buildings and

detention centers

Minimal

Project is conditioned to comply with minimum NFIP

floodplain regulations as adopted by the local community

and would thereby reduce risk and increase protection from

future damage. Effects to cultural resources considered to

be not adverse or are minimized or mitigated through

consultation.

Response to

Hurricanes

Katrina and Rita

USACE

Orleans, St.

Bernard,

Jefferson,

Plaquemines, St.

Mary’s,

Terrebonne, and

Lafourche

Parishes

Evaluates emergency

actions to unwater New

Orleans Metropolitan

Area; rehabilitate

federally authorized

levees, and restore non-

federal levees and pump

stations (Orleans, St.

Bernard, Jefferson and

Plaquemines Parishes);

and flood flight

operations (St. Mary’s,

Terrebonne, and

Lafourche Parishes)

Negligible

Adverse impacts to resources (wetlands) required

compensatory mitigation and are much different from those

in the currently proposed action; there are no wetland

resources associated with proposed action; no impact on

proposed action

Lafitte

Greenway

Corridor

FEMA N. Lopez Bridge,

N. Lopez Street

Restoration of bridge and

installation of bicycle and

pedestrian paths

Negligible



infrastructure within the project area. Effects to adjacent

cultural resources considered to be not adverse or would be

minimized or mitigated through consultation.


Project

Name/Status

Lead


Cumulative

Impact Rationale

City of New

Orleans City-

Wide Road

Repairs

CNO and

FEMA

New Orleans

City-Wide

Repairs, replacements,

and improvements to

roads and components

damaged as a result of

Hurricane Katrina.

Elements include

upgrades to current codes

and standards including

mitigation measures to

reduce the risk of future

damages in the next

flood.

Negligible



infrastructure.

New Orleans

Sewer and

Water Board

Water Supply

and Sanitary

Sewer System-

Wide Repairs

SWBNO New Orleans

City-Wide

Repairs and

improvements to water

and sanitary sewer system

components damaged as a

result of Hurricane

Katrina. Elements include

upgrades to current codes

and standards including

mitigation measures to

reduce the risk of future

damages in the next

flood.

Negligible




future damage

Laffite Housing

Development HANO

3801 St. Bernard

Avenue

Repair and Replacement

of the Lafitte Housing

Development

Negligible




future damage

Public

Assistance

Grant funded

Emergency

Protective

Measures

(2005-2008)

FEMA

33 projects

throughout study

area (see Figure

10)

Emergency Protective

Measures implemented to

protect life and property

before, during and after

Hurricane Katrina

Negligible

Emergency Protective Measures had minimal impact to

resources, they are intended to preserve life and property

during and after a disaster. They are typically temporary in

nature and impact existing infrastructure


Project

Name/Status

Lead


Cumulative

Impact Rationale

Public

Assistance

Grant funded

Public

Buildings

(2005-2021)

FEMA

53 projects

throughout study

area (see Figure

10)

Repairs, reconstruction,

and improvements to

critical infrastructure such

as hospitals, schools, fire

stations, utilities,

government buildings and

detention centers

Negligible




future damage. Effects to cultural resources considered to

be not adverse or are minimized or mitigated through

consultation.


5.0 CONDITIONS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Construction of the proposed action at the 1200 Block of Mirabeau Avenue was analyzed based

on the consultations and review undertaken as part of the EA. The finding of the EA is that no

significant long-term adverse impacts would occur to geology, soils, and topography; water

resources (including wetlands and waters of the U.S.); floodplains; coastal resources; biological

resources; hazardous materials and sites; socioeconomics, environmental justice, and the

protection of children; traffic and parking; air quality, greenhouse gases and climate change; noise;

or historic and cultural resources. However, as a part of construction activities, short-term soils,

traffic, air quality, and noise impacts might occur. These short-term adverse impacts would be

mitigated through the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs). FEMA has

therefore concluded that implementing the proposed action, including the conditions and

mitigation measure listed in this, and other sections of the EA, meet the requirements for a FONSI

and the preparation of an EIS is not required.

The following conditions must be met as part of the implementation of the project. Failure to

comply with these conditions may jeopardize federal funds. The applicant is required to comply

with all federal, state, and local laws, EOs, and regulations. Failure to do so will jeopardize federal

funding.

The applicant would be required to comply with all federal, state, and local laws, EOs, and

regulations. Failure to do so will jeopardize federal funding.

The contractor would employ appropriate measure to eliminate or reduce any potential soil

sloughing, erosion or wind-blown soils through the implementation of appropriate BMPs

To reduce the emission of air quality pollution from equipment during construction, fuel-

burning equipment times should be kept to a minimum and engines should be properly

maintained. Dust minimization measures should be implemented during construction as well.

A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) utilizing BMPs should be developed once

a detailed flood mitigation alternative is selected to mitigate any adverse impact that the storm

water runoff from the construction activities would have on the waters surrounding the

Mirabeau area.

A Louisiana Pollution Discharge Elimination (LPDES) permit is required in accordance with

the Clean Water Act and the Louisiana Water Quality Regulations. The applicant shall require

its contractor to prepare, certify, and implement a construction SWPPP approved by LDEQ to

prevent sediment and construction material transport from the project site. The applicant shall

comply with all conditions of the required permit. All coordination pertaining to these activities

should be documented and copies forwarded to the state and FEMA as part of the permanent

project files.

Since this project would require temporary lane closures and involves some disruption of

normal traffic in the project area, the contractor would keep an open dialogue with the public

and utilize the appropriate signage to indicate rerouted traffic and closed streets. The contractor

would also comply with all federal, state, and parish laws and regulations regarding

construction in high traffic areas.

The contractor would coordinate construction activities with the local floodplain administrator

for a floodplain development permit and all activities would be conducted in compliance with


relevant, applicable, and required local codes and standards designed to reduce the risk of

future flood loss; minimize the impacts of floods on safety, health, and welfare; and preserve

floodplain values.

Applicant is required to make the results of the planned groundwater and geotechnical analysis

publicly available through the New Orleans Department of Public Works. CNO is also required

to coordinate with LDEQ regarding the results of their investigation.

Subject to results of the planned groundwater and geotechnical analysis, the applicant is

required to implement a control mechanism or other BMPs, as appropriate, to maintain a

groundwater table elevation in and around the project area that will not cause excessive

groundwater seepage to the surface (Waggoner & Ball, 2018)

If the proposed activity is not initiated by April 26, 2019, the applicant is responsible for

coordinating with and obtaining any required permit(s) from the LDNR OCM prior to initiating

work.

To ensure no impacts to local or regional air quality, the contractor would comply with all

applicable federal, state, and/or local air pollution control requirements, including using water

or other chemicals (applied daily or as needed to each construction site, debris piles, bare soils,

etc.) and covering any open-bodied haul trucks to control dust. Emissions from the burning of

fuel by internal combustion engines would temporarily increase the levels of some of the

criteria pollutants, including CO2, NO2, O3, and PM10, and non-criteria pollutants such as

VOCs. To reduce these emissions, running times for fuel-burning equipment should be kept to

a minimum and engines should be properly maintained. Mitigation of increased, short-term

noise levels during construction should include limited construction time periods, proper

maintenance of construction equipment, and the selection of noise-dampening construction

techniques

Project construction would involve the use of potentially hazardous materials (e.g., gasoline,

diesel, brake and hydraulic fluid, cement, caustics, acids, solvents, and paint) and may result

in the generation of small volumes of hazardous wastes. Appropriate measures to prevent,

minimize, and control spills of hazardous materials must be taken and generated hazardous or

non-hazardous wastes are required to be disposed in accordance with applicable federal, state,

and local regulations.

The construction contractor, in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations, would

conduct all substantial construction equipment maintenance at off-site locations. On-site

equipment repairs (within the established construction or staging area) would be limited to

routine daily maintenance and repair. A 24-Hour Spill Response Program would also be

implemented if required by state or local authorities. All construction-related debris would be

recycled or disposed of at an approved landfill in accordance with all applicable federal, state,

and parish laws and regulations. Similarly, any hazardous wastes generated during construction

activities would be disposed of in accordance with all federal, state, and local regulations. If

any solid or hazardous wastes, or soils and/or groundwater contaminated with hazardous

constituents are encountered during the project, notification to LDEQ’s Single Point of Contact

(SPOC) at 225-219-3640 is required. Additionally, precautions must be taken to protect

workers from these hazardous constituents in accordance with all applicable Occupational

Safety and Health Act (OSHA) worker safety regulations.


Unusable equipment, debris and material shall be disposed of in an approved manner and

location. In the event that significant items (or evidence thereof) are discovered during

implementation of the project, applicant shall handle, manage, and dispose of petroleum

products, hazardous materials and/or toxic waste in accordance to the requirements and to the

satisfaction of the governing local, state and federal agencies. Applicant is responsible for

securing LDEQ permits for temporary debris staging and volume reduction sites associated

with this project prior to project closeout. Failure to provide FEMA with LDEQ approval may

jeopardize project funding eligibility.

The LDNR Office of Conservation should be contacted at 225-342-5540 if any unregistered

wells of any type are encountered during construction work.

For pipelines and other underground hazards, Louisiana One Call should be contacted at 800-

272-3020 at least 48 hours prior to commencing any subsurface excavation or drilling

operations.

Offsite location of activities such as borrow, disposal, haul-roads, detour-roads, and work

mobilization site developments may be subject to Department of the Army (DA) regulatory

requirements and may have an impact on a DA project (e.g., flood protection levees).

Avoid engaging in construction activities within 660 feet of a bald eagle or golden eagle nest

during nesting and fledging where there is no visual buffer, or 330 feet where there is a visual

buffer, as nesting eagles are quite sensitive to human activities during these times.

If human bone or unmarked grave(s) are present within the project area, compliance with the

Louisiana Unmarked Human Burial Sites Preservation Act (RS 8:671 et seq.) is required. The

applicant shall notify the law enforcement agency of the jurisdiction where the remains are

located within 24 hours of the discovery. The applicant shall also notify FEMA and the

Louisiana Division of Archaeology at 225-342-8170 within 72 hours after the discovery.

If during the course of work, archaeological artifacts (prehistoric or historic) are discovered,

the applicant shall stop work in the vicinity of the discovery and take all reasonable measures

to avoid or minimize harm to the finds. The applicant shall inform their HMGP contacts at

FEMA and GOHSEP, who will in turn contact FEMA Historic Preservation (HP) staff. The

applicant will not proceed with work until FEMA HP staff completes consultation with the

SHPO, and others as appropriate.

6.0 AGENCY COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

6.1 Agency Coordination

Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ)

Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (LDNR)

Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF)

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)

City of New Orleans Floodplain Administrator


Louisiana State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

Alabama Coushatta Tribe of Texas (ACTT)

Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma (CNO)

Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana (CTL)

Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana (CT)

Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma (ESTO)

Jena Band of Choctaw Indians (JBCI)

Kialegee Tribal Town (KT)

Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians (MBCI)

Muscogee Creek Nation (MCN)

Seminole Tribe of Oklahoma (SNO)

Seminole Tribe of Florida (STF)

Tunica Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana (TBTL)

6.2 Public Involvement

A public meeting was held on Thursday, November 28, 2016, between 6:00-8:00 pm at Dillard

University Community Resource Center, 3301 Orleans Annette Street, New Orleans, Louisiana to

present the 30% design to the community and solicit feedback. Another public meeting was held

on August 5, 2017 at Arthur Ashe School, 1456 Gardena Drive, New Orleans, Louisiana to present

the 90% design. The project was also presented to the Resilience Project Design Committee

Meeting on June 30, 2016 at 2:30 PM, September 25, 2016 at 3:30 P.M. and December 13, 2016

at 1:30 p.m. in the 8 Floor Conference Room, at the CNO City Hall, 1300 Perdido Street, New

Orleans, Louisiana. Members of the committee include representatives from several City entities

including Sewerage and Water Board, Parks and Parkways, and the Planning Commission. These

meetings were also open to the public. Public comments and the Committee Member’s comments

were considered and addressed during the meeting or incorporated into the design documents

and/or maintenance plan.

The Mirabeau Water Garden is one of 91 projects identified in the City of New Orleans Hazard

Mitigation Plan. As part of the effort to update the 2010 Hazard Mitigation Grant Program

Mitigation Plan, an updated and expanded planning process was used to review and update the

plan to ensure broad representation from the community. Stakeholders for this planning effort

included non-profits, community organizations, environmental groups, and regional governmental

agencies with an interest in and/or responsibility for hazard mitigation planning. In addition to a

CNO City Hall Working Group and Advisory Committee, two additional groups were convened

for the purpose of holding discussions specific to their responsibilities (i.e., Public Safety Group

and Non-Profits and Community Organizations Group).

The CNO City Hall Working Group met eight times between June and October 2015. The purpose

of each meeting was as follows:


June 26, 2015 Overview/Hazards: overview of the hazard mitigation planning process;

review the 2010 Plan; hazards activity to rank hazards and discuss

correlation to 2010 risk assessment.

July 13, 2015 Assets and Goals: share draft maps and discuss data sources; exercise to

develop updated goals for 2015 Plan.

July 31, 2015 History of Impacts: update on risk assessment; discuss proposed goals;

hazards exercise to discuss what could have been done to reduce impacts of

different hazards in past 5 years.

August 13, 2015 Risk Assessment: update on risk assessment; overview of hazard impacts.

September 14, 2015 Mitigation Strategies: mitigation actions activity to determine how actions

fit under updated goals.

September 25, 2015 Capabilities/Implementation: capability assessment and mitigation action

implementation activities to determine process for city departments to

implement mitigation strategies.

October 9, 2015 Hazards Ranking/Draft Review: activity to rank hazards; review draft of

2015 Plan Update.

October 23, 2015 Final Draft Review: review of final 2015 Plan Update prior to submittal to

GOHSEP.

The Advisory Committee met four times between July and October 2015. The purpose of each

meeting was as follows.

July 8, 2015 Assets, Goals, Capabilities.

August 5, 2015 Risk Assessment.

September 18, 2015 Mitigation Strategies.

October 7, 2015 Implementation and Draft Review

Community involvement in the development of the Hazard Mitigation Plan update was

coordinated with an ongoing public engagement process through the CNO for the Resilient New

Orleans Strategy and National Disaster Resiliency Competition (NDRC). Community members

were informed of the planning process through a press release, as well as the City’s Hazard

Mitigation website (http://www.nola.gov/hazard-mitigation/). A survey was circulated to the

general public in August and September of 2015 and received over 130 responses and a public

comment form was posted on the City’s Hazard Mitigation website.

One community meeting was organized and held in conjunction with the NDRC public

engagement process. The community engagement meeting, held on October 19, 2015, included

public presentations of the risks, hazards, strategies, and implementation. Comments from the

public were cataloged and noted. Comments were used to inform mitigation action strategy

rankings. Community involvement in the Public Meeting included:

Receiving information about the hazard mitigation project planning process,

http://www.nola.gov/hazard-mitigation/


Sharing specific concerns about each phase of the planning effort,

Reviewing the recommendations from the Planning Group,

Identifying community priorities for hazard mitigation project planning.

A preliminary list of mitigation project actions, including 2010 mitigation actions that are ongoing

and potential new mitigation projects, was presented to the CNO Hazard Mitigation staff for its

review and then to the City Hall Working Group and Advisory Committee. The City Hall Working

Group and Advisory Committee provided feedback on the proposed actions, including their input

regarding the placement of the actions relative to the goals. The list of actions was also made

available to the community in October 2015.

Public notice of the availability of the draft EA is published on Wednesday, December 26, 2018;

Friday, December 28, 2018; and Wednesday, January 2, 2019 in the Times-Picayune, the journal

of record for Orleans Parish, as well as in The Advocate – New Orleans Edition on Wednesday,

December 26, 2018; Thursday, December 27, 2018; and Friday, December 28, 2018.to alert the

public that the Draft EA and draft Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) are available for

review at the New Orleans Public Library – Main Branch, located at 219 Loyola Avenue, and at

the Norman Mayer Branch located at 3001 Gentilly Blvd, both in New Orleans, LA . Additionally,

there will be a 30-day comment period beginning on Wednesday, December 26, 2018 and

concluding on Friday, January 25, 2019 at 4 pm. Once the public comment period for the Draft

EA is completed, comments will be addressed and incorporated into the EA as appropriate. A

copy of the draft FONSI is provided in Appendix H, and a copy of the Public Notice is attached in

Appendix I.

Electronic versions of the draft EA and draft FONSI can be viewed at FEMA's website at

http://www.fema.gov/resource-document-library. Comments may be mailed to:

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY-FEMA EHP

MIRABEAU WATER GARDEN PROJECT

1500 MAIN STREET

BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA 70802.

Comments may be emailed to: [email protected] or faxed to: 225-346-5848. Verbal

comments will be accepted or recorded at 225-267-2962. All comments must be received by

Friday, January 25, 2019 at 4 pm. If no substantive comments are received, the draft EA and

associated draft FONSI will become final.

7.0 CONCLUSION

The findings of this EA conclude that the proposed action at the proposed site would result in no

significant adverse impacts to the natural and human environment, including geology,

groundwater, floodplains, public health and safety, hazardous materials, socioeconomic resources,

environmental justice, or cultural resources.

During project construction, short-term impacts to soils, surface water, transportation, air quality,

and noise are anticipated and conditions have been incorporated to mitigate and minimize the

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


effects (see section 6, conditions and mitigation measures). No long-term adverse impacts are

anticipated from the proposed project. Therefore, FEMA finds the proposed action meets the

requirements for a FONSI under NEPA and the preparation of an EIS will not be required.

8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS

This EA was prepared under the direction of FEMA. Individuals who contributed to the

preparation of this document are:

Jerame Cramer Environmental Liaison Officer, FEMA

Tiffany Spann-Winfield Deputy Environmental Liaison Officer, FEMA

Amber Martinez Supervisory Historic Preservation Specialist, FEMA

LeSchina Holmes Lead Environmental Protection Specialist, FEMA

Melanie Pitts Supervisory Environmental Protection Specialist, FEMA

Robert E. Leslie, Jr., PE, CFM Hydraulic Civil Engineer, FEMA

Joey Chauvin Environmental and Historic Preservation Advisor, FEMA

Randy Norris Acclivity Associates

Darren Mitchell Acclivity Associates

Timothy Hall Technical Advisor, Quaternary Resource Investigations

Ron Moore Project Manager, Quaternary Resource Investigations

L. Rivers Berryhill Environmental Scientist, Quaternary Resource Investigations


9.0 Bibliography

Barras, J.A., 2009. Land area change and overview of major hurricane impacts in coastal

Louisiana, 2004-2008: USGS Investigation Map 3080. 1932-2000 Land Loss from Barras, J.A.,

USGS NWRC.

City of New Orleans, Department of Public Works, Road Work Map. Available from

http://roadwork.nola.gov/home. [Accessed 04 April 2017].

City of New Orleans, Department of Public Works, Filmore South Group A. Available from

http://roadwork.nola.gov/roadwork/media/Documents/Maps/ByNeighborhood/RR042.pdf.

[Accessed 04 April 2017].

City of New Orleans, Code of Ordinances - Chapter 66, Article IV, Division III, Sections 201-

203. Available from New Orleans Code of Ordinances. [Accessed April 5, 2017]

Coleman, J. M., and Gagliano, S. M., 1964. Cyclic Sedimentation in the Mississippi River

Deltaic Plain: Louisiana State University, Coastal Studies Institute, Technical Report No. 16.

Baton Rouge, LA.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2015. Environmental Assessment-Burden Center

Infrastructure Improvements, FEMA, Region VI, Louisiana Recovery Office 1500 Main Street,

Baton Rouge, LA.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2016. Coastal Zone Management Act, 1972, FEMA.

Available from www.fema.gov/coastal-zone-management-act-1972 [Accessed 12 July 2016].

Federal Highway Administration, "Roadway Construction Noise Model User's Guide," FHWA-

HEP-05-054, January 2006

Federal Transit Administration, "Transit and Vibration Impact Assessment," FTA-VA-90-1003-

06, May 2006

Frazier, D. E., 1967, Recent deltaic deposits of the Mississippi River: their development and

chronology: Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies Transactions, v. 27, p. 287-315.

Housing and Urban Development. 2009. HUD Noise Guidebook. Available from

https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/313/hud-noise-guidebook/. [Accessed 4 April 2017].

Kinabrev, J. M., IV. 1990. Vegetation and Geology of Lake Pontchartrain Bayous: An Independent

Project for Environmental Studies. Williams College, Williamstown, Massachusetts.

Louisiana Department of Natural Resources. 1985. Coastal Management Program Orleans Parish.

Available from http://dnr.louisiana.gov/assets/docs/coastal/interagencyaff/ localcoast al

programs/orleans.pdf [Accessed 12 July 2016].

Louisiana Department of Natural Resources Office of Coastal Management Staff, 2012. Louisiana

Coastal Zone, Act 588 of 2012. Available from http://www.dnr.louisiana.gov

/assets/OCM/CoastalZoneBoundary/CZB2012/maps/revised_CZB_with_Contact_In fo.pdf

[Accessed 12 July 2016].

Louisiana Department of Natural Resources. 2016. Permits/Mitigation Division; available from

http://dnr.louisiana.gov/index.cfm?md=pagebuilder&tmp=home&pid=90&pnid=0&nid=189.


http://roadwork.nola.gov/home

http://roadwork.nola.gov/roadwork/media/Documents/Maps/ByNeighborhood/RR042.pdf

https://www.municode.com/library/la/new_orleans/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICO_CH66EN_ARTIVNO_DIV3RE_S66-201NOME

http://www.fema.gov/coastal-zone-management-act-1972

https://www.hudexchange.info/resource/313/hud-noise-guidebook/

http://dnr.louisiana.gov/assets/docs/coastal/interagencyaff/%20localcoast%20al%20programs/orleans.pdf

http://dnr.louisiana.gov/assets/docs/coastal/interagencyaff/%20localcoast%20al%20programs/orleans.pdf

http://www/

http://dnr.louisiana.gov/index.cfm?md=pagebuilder&tmp=home&pid=90&pnid=0&nid=189


Louisiana Geological Survey Staff, 2010. Generalized Geologic Map of Louisiana. Louisiana

Geological Survey. Available from http://www.lgs.lsu.edu. [Accessed 2 February 2016].

Louisiana State Legislature, 2017. Revised Statutes 49:214.23. [Accessed 17 Nov 2017].

http://legis.la.gov/legis/Law.aspx?d=103628

Map Data, Google Earth, 2017. [Accessed 24 April 2017].

United States Census Bureau. 2010. American Community Survey, 2011-2015 American

Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Tables S0101, 21701, S2301,DP04. Generated by L. Rivers

Berryhill using American Fact Finder. [Accessed 04 April 2017].

United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation

Service, Web Soil Survey. 2016. Available from http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/ [Accessed

13 June and 11 July 2016].

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. EPA Identifies Noise Levels Affecting Health and

Welfare; available from http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/epa-identifies-noise-levels-affecting-

health-and-welfare/. [Accessed 14 July 2015].

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. Record of Decision for EPA Action on Louisiana’s

Clean Water Act 2014; 303(d) list. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-

09/documents/la-2014-303d_decision_document.pdf

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 2016a. Coastal Barrier Resources System. Available from

www.fws.gov/ecological-services/habitat-conservation/coastal.html. [Accessed 12 July 2016].

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 2016b. Coastal Barrier Resources System. Available from

http://www.fws.gov/ecological-services/habitat-conservation/cbra/maps/Locator/LA.html


United States Geological Survey, 1891. Spanish Fort, Louisiana 15’ Quadrangle Map. (1:62,500).

Retrieved from https://store.usgs.gov/product/325924. [Accessed 11 July 2016].

U.S. Geological Survey, 1938. Spanish Fort, Louisiana 7.5’ Quadrangle Map. (1:31,680).










U.S. Department of Commerce, National Weather Service, Flood Return Period Calculator.

Available at https://www.weather.gov/epz/wxcalc_floodperiod. [Accessed 30 August 2018].

http://www.lgs.lsu.edu/

http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/

http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/epa-identifies-noise-levels-affecting-health-and-welfare/

http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/epa-identifies-noise-levels-affecting-health-and-welfare/

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/la-2014-303d_decision_document.pdf

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/la-2014-303d_decision_document.pdf

http://www.fws.gov/ecological-services/habitat-conservation/coastal.html

http://www.fws.gov/ecological-services/habitat-conservation/cbra/maps/Locator/LA.html

https://store.usgs.gov/product/325924






https://www.weather.gov/epz/wxcalc_floodperiod


City of New Orleans. (2015). 2015 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. New Orleans: City of New

Orleans.

City of New Orleans. (2017, October 23). City of New Orleans Department of Public Workds.

Retrieved from nola.gov: https://nola.gov/dpw/about-us/

City of New Orleans. (2018, September 20). Municode Library. Retrieved from New Orleans City

Council Code of Ordinances:

https://library.municode.com/la/new_orleans/codes/code_of_ordinances

Coastal Environments, Inc. (2016). Negative Findings Phase I Cultural Resource Investigations,

Proposed Mirabeau Drainage Project, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, LA DOA Report No.

22-5262. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Coastal Environments, Inc.

Council on Environmental Quality. (1997a). Enviromental Justice: Guidance Under NEPA.

Council on Environmental Quality. (1997b). Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National

Environmetnal Policy Act.

Council on Environmental Quality. (2006). Considering Cumulative Impacts under the National

Environmental Policy Act.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2012). What Is Environmental Justice? U.S.

Department of Homeland Security, .

Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2016, September 30). FEMA Flood Map Service

Center: Search by Address. Retrieved from FEMA Flood Map Service Center:

https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Louisiana State Historic Preservation Officer, the

Governor’s Office Of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness, Participating

Tribes. (2016, December 21). Louisiana Programmatic Agreement.

Louisiana Department of Natural Resources. (2016, July 12). Office of Coastal Management,

Permits/Mitigation Division. Retrieved from Louisiana Department of Natural Resources:

http://www.dnr.louisiana.gov/index.cfm?md=pagebuilder&tmp=home&pid=90&pnid=0

&nid=189

Materials Management Group, Inc. (2015, August 21). Phase I Environmental Site Assessment

Report. Louisiana.

MSMM Engineering, LLC. (2018). Mirabeau Water Garden, Stormwater Management & Flood

Mitigation, 100% Final Design, Hydrology and Hydraulics Model Results. New Orleans.

National Geographic Society, ESRI et al. (2013). Aerial Image.

Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2016, July 11). Web

Soil Survey. Retrieved from http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov

Prakken, L. B. (2009). Groundwater Resources in the New Orleans Area, Water Resoucres

Technical Report No. 80, US Geological Survey in Cooperation with the Louisiana

Department of Transportation and Development. .


Sanborn Map Company. (n.d.). Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of New Orleans, Volume 10 1937,

updated 1951. New Orleans, Louisiana: Sanborn Map Company.

Snead, J. P. (2008). Generalized Geologic Map of Louisiana. Generalized Geologic Map of

Louisiana. Baton Rouge, Louisiana, U.S.A.: Louisiana Geological Survey. Retrieved from

http://www.lgs.lsu.edu

Stantec. (2017). Hagan-Lafitte Drainage Upgrades and Green Infrastructure Preliminary Design

(90%) Report.

State of Louisiana. (2006, June 22). State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act of 1978.

Revised Statute (R.S.) 49:214.21, Subpart C. Baton Rouge, Louisiana, U.S.A.: Louisiana

State Legislature.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2015). American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2011-2015.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1974). Information on Levels of Environmental Noise

Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. Office

of Noise Abatement and Control.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2014). Retrieved from

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents/la-2014-

303d_decision_document.pdf

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2017a, May 11). Nonattainment Areas for Criteria

Pollutants (Green Book). Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/green-book

U.S. Federal Highway Administration . (2006). Road Construction Noise Model User's Guide .

U.S. Federal Transit Administration. (2006). Transit Noise and Vibration.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. (2017, November 16). Wetlands Mapper. Retrieved from National

Wetlands Inventory: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/Mapper.html

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2017). Species by Parish List, Orleans Parish. Retrieved from

https://www.fws.gov/southeast/pdf/fact-sheet/louisiana-ecological-services-field-office-t-

and-e-species.pdf

U.S. Geological Survey. (1939, 1951, 1965, 1966, 1983, 1998, 1999, 2012, 2015). New Orleans

NE, Louisiana 7.5’ Quadrangle Map. Retrieved from

http://store.usgs.gov/b2c_usgs/usgs/maplocator/(ctype=areaDetails

&xcm=r3standardpitrex_prd&carea=%24ROOT&layout=6_1_61_48&uiarea=2)/.do.

United State Department of Defense, Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers. (2012, June

4). HSDRRS Design Guidelines. Hurricane and Storm Damage Risk Reduction System

(HSDRRS) Design Guidelines. New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.: U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers.

United States Department of Defense, Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers. (1986,

November 13). Regulatory Programs of the Corps of Engineers (51 Federal Register [FR]

41220). Retrieved November 8, 2018, from Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, Section

320 to 330 (33 CFR 320-330):

http://www.saj.usace.army.mil/Portals/44/docs/regulatory/sourcebook/CFR_References_

2012/33CFR_320_332_CorpsRegs.pdf


United States Department of Defense, Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers. (2011, June

8). HSDRRS 2011 Interim Measures Design Manual. Hurricane and Storm Damage Risk

Reduction System (HSDRRS) 2011 Interim Measures Design Manual. New Orleans,

Louisiana, U.S.A: U.S Army Corps of Engineers.


8). HSDRRS 2011 Interim Measures Design Manual. Hurricane and Storm Damage Risk

Reduction System (HSDRRS) 2011 Interim Measures Design Manual. New Orleans,

Louisiana, U.S.A.: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.


4). HSDRRS Design Guidelines. Hurricane and Storm Damage Risk Reduction System

(HSDRRS) Design Guidelines. New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.: U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers.

United States Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD]. (2018, November 13).

Noise Abatement and Control. Retrieved from HUD Exchange:

https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/environmental-review/noise-abatement-and-

control/

United States Enviromental Protection Agency. (2017, November 7). EPA's Environmental Justice

Screening and Mapping Tool (Version 2017). Retrieved from

https://ejscreen.epa.gov/mapper/

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2018, June 26). Memorandum. Updating the

EPA's Regulations Implementing clean Water Act Section 404(c). Washington, D.C.,

U.S.A.: United States Environmental Protection Agency.

USEPA. (2017, August 17). EJSCREEN: Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool.

Retrieved from EPA.gov: https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen

USFWS. (2017, July 13). Letter regarding AI 2644 CNO - Municipal Yacht Harbor Breakwater

Improved Project. Louisiana: Louisiana Ecological Servies Field Office.

Waggoner & Ball. (2018). Mirabeau Water Garden, Stormwater Management & Flood

Mitigation, 100% Design Report. New Orleans.

Waggoner and Ball. (2015). Mirabeau Water Garden Stormwater Management & Flood

Mitigation 30% Design Report.

Waggoner and Ball. (2016). Mirabeau Water Garden Stormwater Management & Flood

Mitigation, 60% Design Report.

Waggonner & Ball Architects. (2015). Mirabeau Water Garden Stormwater Management & Flood

Mitigation 30% Design Report. New Orleans.

Waggonner & Ball Architects, Sherwood Design Engineers, and Carbo Landscape Architecture.

(2018). Mirabeau Water Garden Storm Water Management & Flood Mitigation Final

Design Report. New Orleans: Waggonner & Ball Architects.

Waggonner & Ball. (2016). November 28, 2016 Community Meeting Slides.