US Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Great Lakes Region Chicago Airports District Office

MIDAMERICA ST. LOUIS AIRPORT

AVIATION DEVELOPMENT Draft Short Form Environmental Assessment

This Short Form Environmental Assessment is intended to be used when an airport project: cannot be Categorically Excluded (CATEX); when the environmental impacts of the proposed project are expected to not be significant; and when a detailed Environmental Assessment (EA) would not be appropriate. Accordingly, this form is intended to meet the Federal regulatory requirements of an EA.

Resource guidance used in preparation of this form comes from the Federal Aviation Administration’s Order 5050.4B, “National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions For Airport Actions” or subsequent revisions, which incorporates the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as well as the US Department of Transportation environmental regulations (including FAA Order 1050.1F or subsequent revisions), and other federal statutes and regulations designed to protect the nation's natural, historic, cultural, and archeological resources.

Short Form Environmental Assessment Page 1 Revision: 2007-10-01 A

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION SHORT FORM ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

An Environmental Assessment (EA) is based upon the guidance in Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Order 5050.4B, "National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions For Airport Actions" or subsequent revisions, which incorporates the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as well as the US Department of Transportation environmental regulations (including FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” or subsequent revisions), and many other federal statutes and regulations designed to protect the Nation's natural, historic, cultural, and archeological resources.

This environmental (Short Form EA) format is intended to be used when a project cannot be categorically excluded (CATEX) from formal environmental assessment, but when the environmental impacts of the proposed project are expected to not be significant and a detailed EA would not be appropriate or needed.

Applicability This format should be used if the sponsor's proposed project meets the following criteria:

The proposed project involves conditions ("extraordinary circumstances") identified in FAA Order 5050.4B, Paragraph 602a (Actions Unlikely To Involve Extraordinary Circumstances); Paragraph 602b (Actions That May Involve Extraordinary Circumstances); Paragraph 604 (Categorical Exclusions Unlikely To Involve Extraordinary Circumstances); Paragraph 605 (Categorical Exclusions That May Involve Extraordinary Circumstances); or Paragraph 606 (Extraordinary Circumstances), and the sponsor shall demonstrate that involvement with, or impacts to, the extraordinary circumstances are not notable in number or degree of impact, and that any significant impacts can be mitigated below threshold levels.

Short Form Environmental Assessment Page 2 Revision: 2007-10-01 A

Complete the following information:

1. Project Location: Airport Name: MidAmerica St. Louis Airport Address: 9656 Air Terminal Drive City: Mascoutah County: St. Clair State: Illinois

2. Airport Sponsor Information: Point of contact: Bryan Johnson Address: 9656 Air Terminal Dr, Mascoutah, IL 62258 Telephone: 618-566-5240 Fax: E-mail: [email protected]

3. Short Form EA Preparer Information: Point of contact: Julie Car, Managing Consultant, Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Address: 20 N. Clark Street, Suite 1500, Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: 312-606-0611 Fax: E-mail: [email protected]

4. Identify all attachments to this Short Form EA.

Supporting exhibits, ordered as they appear in the text: 1) Proposed Project Elements 2) Proposed Aviation Development 3) Alternatives 4) Airport Location 5) Airport Layout 6) 2019 Noise Exposure Contours 7) 2024 No Action Alternative Noise Exposure Contours 8) 2024 Proposed Project Noise Exposure Contours 9) 2024 and 2029 Proposed Project Differential Noise Exposure Contours 10) 2029 No Action Alternative Noise Exposure Contours 11) 2029 Proposed Project Noise Exposure Contours 12) Water Resources 13) Taxiway Alternative Alignment 1 14) Taxiway Alternative Alignment 2 15) Proposed Tree Removal Supporting attachments, ordered as they appear in the text: A) Aircraft Noise Analysis, December 2020 B) Crawford, Murphy & Tilly, MidAmerica Airport (BLV) Aerospace Development Traffic Impact Study, October 2020. C) Air Quality Analysis, December 2020 D) State and Federal Species and Habitat Assessments, September 2020. E) Horner & Shifrin, “Wetland Delineation,” Memorandum, November 19, 2020. F) Horner & Shifrin, “FEMA Flood Maps for MidAmerica Airport,” Memorandum, June 30, 2020. G) Horner & Shifrin, “Environmental Due Diligence Audit – MidAmerica Airport,” July 1, 2020. H) Public and Agency Coordination Materials

Short Form Environmental Assessment Page 3 Revision: 2007-10-01 A

5. Proposed Development Action (describe ALL associated action that can be deemed one complete project):

The St. Clair County Public Building Commission (PBC) proposes to lease MidAmerica St. Louis Airport (BLV or Airport) property for the construction and operation of an aviation development with airfield access. The proposed project would revise the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on August 31, 2010 (2010 Approved ALP).1 As shown on Exhibit 1, the location of the proposed project is previously disturbed, undeveloped land southeast of Airport Boulevard and southwest of Illinois Route 4. The proposed project area is approximately 235 acres and includes rights-of-way along IL Route 4 for intersection improvements at Airport Boulevard and the proposed entrance to the project. The proposed aviation development would be constructed on approximately 34 acres of Airport property and would include multiple structures, paved parking lot, new taxiway for access to the proposed development, utility extensions, and access to IL Route 4 (refer to Exhibits 1 and 2). The proposed aviation development would support the production of aircraft and flight testing/operations. Airport property would be leased to the tenant, which would be a source of revenue for the Airport. The proposed aviation development would include a range of 5 to 8 metal-sided structures to be used for aircraft manufacturing, painting, and storage, and office, maintenance, and support spaces. Structure heights would be a maximum of 70 feet. The proposed project would include construction/installation of: • Main aircraft manufacturing facility—approximately 200,000 square feet (SF) • Aircraft Hangar—up to approximately 40,000 SF with 3 indoor aircraft parking positions • Paint Hangar—30,000 SF • Aircraft Shelter—16,000 SF • Miscellaneous support structures—up to 10,000 SF for each structure; maximum total for all structures of 40,000 SF • Paved parking lot—200,000 SF with up to 500 spaces • Apron pavement—200,000 SF with 4 outdoor aircraft parking positions • Taxiway— approximately 362,000 SF; 3,000 linear feet designed to accommodate Aircraft Design Group IV with taxiway bridge over Crooked Creek • Dry Detention Basin—vegetated, dry bottom basin approximately 163,000 SF (3.7 acres) • Paved Airport service road— approximately 84,000 SF; 3,500 linear feet, 24 feet wide • Security fence—would be installed around the perimeter of the proposed aviation development, approximately 3,500 linear feet, 8 feet tall The proposed aviation development would operate 5 days per week with three 8-hour shifts for up to 400 employees, 250 employees for production and 150 employees for support. The proposed aviation development, connector taxiway, and Airport service road, would have approximately 27 acres of impervious surface.

1 The ALP was submitted to the FAA June 1, 2010 and approved August 31, 2010.

Short Form Environmental Assessment Page 4 Revision: 2007-10-01 A

In conformance with Section 163 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, a determination on the ability of the FAA to take federal actions on the proposed project was completed in December 2020. The FAA retains ALP authority over the elements of the proposed project dealing with the direct manufacturing of aircraft (i.e., aircraft manufacturing facility, hangars, and shelters), that may impact the safe and efficient operation of aircraft (i.e., dry detention basin partially within the runway protection zone (RPZ) for Runway 14L-32R), and airfield improvements (i.e., taxiway). The FAA does not have authority over those elements of the proposed project that are considered non-aeronautical, which includes the Airport service road, parking, roadwork, and other buildings not housing aircraft (i.e., support structures and guard shack). Because the non-aeronautival elements of the proposed project would not be constructed without the aircraft manufacturing facilites and airfield improvement elements of the proposed project, they are being evaluated in this environmental assessment pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Construction is proposed to begin in second quarter 2021 and anticipated to be complete by the end of 2022 with aircraft manufacturing commencing in second quarter 2023.

6. Purpose of and Need for the Project:

The purpose of the proposed project is to develop a manufacturing facility that would produce Aircraft Design Group III aircraft for the U.S. military. The U.S. military is continuously exploring new ways to efficiently and economically operate their fleets to maintain mission readiness. The new aircraft would be designed for a specialized use that is not currently available in existing aircraft. Even though military aircraft are not required to meet the FAA noise standards for new aircraft, the proposed project would produce aircraft that meet Stage 3 noise standards. The need for the proposed project is to provide a facility with airfield access capable of manufacturing and maintaining specialized aircraft to support current and future U.S. military operations. Leasing Airport land to a third party to develop and manage the proposed aviation development would offer the Airport a means of diversifying and augmenting airport business opportunities. Developing the unused and undeveloped Airport property would enable the Airport to achieve a revenue source from rent.

7. Alternatives: Describe any other reasonable actions that may feasibly substitute for the proposed project, and include a description of the "No Action" alternative. If there are no feasible or reasonable alternatives to the proposed project, explain why:

Five sites were considered for the proposed aviation development (refer to Exhibit 3). A two-step process was used to evaluate these alternatives. The following criteria were used for alternative screening and evaluation. Step 1: Meet the Purpose and Need—The alternative must be of adequate size and available to support the proposed aviation development to meet the Purpose and Need described in Section 6 to be considered further. If the alternative did not meet this criterion, it was eliminated from further consideration. Step 2: Construction and Operational Feasibility—The alternative must be feasible to construct and operate within existing operational and physical constraints (including consideration of the cost and complexity to construct new or relocate existing infrastructure). Construction costs must be reasonable in comparison to other feasible alternatives. For example, the alternative should provide access to Runway 14L-32R and avoid introducing new road crossings.

Short Form Environmental Assessment Page 5 Revision: 2007-10-01 A

Each alternative was evaluated using comprehensive criteria such as environmental considerations, landside ease of access, disruption to the Airport’s plans, runway access, and proximity to the existing infrastructure. With this evaluation, it was determined that the preferred alternative for the development of this project is located southeast of the passenger terminal, where there is adequate acreage for the proposed aviation development and future expansion or development. This area has efficient access to Runway 14L-32R and is in proximity to existing landside and airside infrastructure. Also, this alternative would not impact any development plans that the airport may have in the future. Finally, the 2010 ALP designates this area for future airport development, consistent with the proposed aviation development. Under this two-step process, each alternative was evaluated first under the Step 1 criterion. Those alternatives meeting Step 1 were then evaluated under Step 2. Alternatives eliminated under Steps 1 or 2 were not subject to detailed evaluation, with one exception; the No Action Alternative was evaluated regardless of outcome of the screening process pursuant to NEPA, as implemented by CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1502.14).2 Table 1 summarizes the two-step alternative evaluation. No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, the Airport-owned property southeast of Runway 14L-32R would remain vacant and undeveloped. The site would remain designated for future airport development as indicated on the 2010 Approved ALP maintaining the Airport’s intention to develop the site at a future date. The Airport would not lease airport land to a third party for aviation development, and thereby no revenue from land rent would be generated. While this alternative does not meet the Step 1 criterion (Purpose and Need), the No Action Alternative is a required alternative under NEPA and serves as the baseline for the assessment of future conditions/impacts. Preferred Alternative Alternative 1 - The Preferred Alternative would construct and operate the proposed aviation development on Airport property. The proposed project area would be southeast of the passenger terminal where there is adequate acreage for the proposed aviation development that is available for construction assuming permitting approvals. The area has direct access to Runway 14L-32R and is in proximity to existing infrastructure, such as roadways and utilities. The area is identified on the On-Airport Land Use Plan (sheet 14 of the 2010 Approved ALP) for future airport development. Alternative Site Locations Four alternative locations to construct the proposed aviation development were considered to determine if other potential locations could reasonably satisfy the purpose and need of the proposed aviation development and be feasible to construct and operate. Alternative 2 - The area west of Runway 14L-32R is comprised of wetlands, which are protected as part of the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit issued for development of the Airport by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). These wetlands and forested bottomlands provide flood storage and wildlife habitat that cannot be disturbed without significant compensatory mitigation requirements, pursuant to the provisions of the Section 404 permit. Therefore, this alternative would not meet the Step 1 criterion of purpose and need.

2 The Council on the Environmental Quality (CEQ) amended its regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) on September 14, 2020. Agencies have discretion to apply the amended regulations to the NEPA processes that were begun before September 14, 2020 (40 CFR § 1506.13). The NEPA review process for the proposed aviation development was initiated in July 2020. Therefore, the prior CEQ regulations continue to apply to this NEPA document.

Short Form Environmental Assessment Page 6 Revision: 2007-10-01 A

Alternative 3 - The area east of the passenger terminal is designated for future expansion of the passenger terminal and adjacent vehicle parking lots. Access to the runway from this area is limited due to existing roadways and vehicle parking lots. Therefore, this alternative would not meet the Step 2 criterion of construction and operational feasibilty. Alternative 4 - Development off-Airport property would not be practical due to the requirement for runway access for aviation activities. Additional land to construct an access taxiway for aircraft and roadways for vehicles between the runway and the aviation development would be required. Capital outlay for other infrastructure improvements, such as utilities and roadways would be significantly greater than for development on Airport property. Therefore, this alternative would not meet the Step 2 criterion of construction and operational feasibility. Alternative 5 - Scott Air Force Base is an active federal military installation southwest of the Airport. The Joint Use Agreement between the Department of the Air Force and St. Clair County precludes development of civilian activities on the Air Force base. Therefore, this alternative would not meet the Step 1 criterion of purpose and need.

Short Form Environmental Assessment Page 7 Revision: 2007-10-01 A

TABLE 1: ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION Evaluation Step: 1 – Purpose and Need 2 – Construction and Operational Feasibility Pass/ Pass/ Alternative Evaluation Fail Evaluation Fail 1 – Southeast of Passenger • Adequate area available for aviation Pass • Area has direct access to Runway 14L-32R Pass Terminal (Preferred development and local roadways Alternative) • Development would be in proximity to existing landside and airside infrastructure 2 – West of Runway 14L-32R • The wetlands and forested bottomlands Fail cannot be disturbed without significant compensatory mitigation requirements, pursuant to the provisions of the existing CWA Section 404 permit 3 – Adjacent to Passenger • Adequate area available for aviation Pass • Area is designated for future expansion of Fail Terminal development the passenger terminal and adjacent vehicle parking lots • No access to the runway from this area is possible due to existing roadways and vehicle parking lots 4 – Off-Site Adjacent to Airport • Adequate area available for aviation Pass • No access to the runway from this area is Fail development possible due to existing roadways • Off-site development would require extensive infrastructure and may also restrict the types of aviation development 5 – Adjacent to Scott Air Force • The Joint Use Agreement precludes Fail Base development of civilian activities on the Air Force base

SOURCES: Earth Tech, Inc., Environmental Survey for Additional Site Development, April 2004; Ricondo & Associates, Inc., October 2020.

Short Form Environmental Assessment Page 8 Revision: 2007-10-01 A

8. Affected Environment. Describe the affected environment of the project area (terrain features, level of urbanization, sensitive populations, etc). Attach a map or drawing of the area with the location(s) of the proposed action(s) identified.

The Airport was built to address long-term aviation system capacity in the St. Louis metropolitan region for airline passengers, package express services, and freight carried by cargo shippers. It is approximately 20 miles southeast of St. Louis, Missouri and 32 miles southeast of St. Louis Lambert International Airport (refer to Exhibit 4). The Airport is owned by St. Clair County, Illinois and operated by the St. Clair County PBC. The Airport is one-quarter mile south of Interstate 64 (I-64) exit 23 on IL Route 4. Passenger parking is provided in front of the passenger terminal. There is bus service from St. Clair County Transit District that connects to the Metrolink.

The Airport is a joint-use facility with Scott Air Force Base, which is an active federal military installation southwest of the Airport. As shown on Exhibit 5, there are two parallel runways, Runway 14R-32L is used for military aircraft operations and Runway 14L-32R serves as the primary runway for civil aircraft operations. Runway 14L-32R is 10,000 feet (Portland cement concrete), Runway 14R-32L is 8,000 feet (mixture of concrete and asphalt), both runways are 150 feet wide. Runway 14L-32R is served by two primary taxiways. Taxiway K is a parallel taxiway that extends from the approach end of Runway 14L southeast to the approach end of Runway 32R. Connector Taxiways K1 through K6 provide apron access. Taxiway G crosses Silver Creek and connects the two runways. There are three concrete aprons, Golf Apron (547,200 SF) is for general aviation (GA) operations with 20 tie-downs, Cargo Apron (450,515 SF) serves air cargo operations with 4 parking spots, and Terminal Apron (355,000 SF) serves air carrier operations and provides 4 parking spots. The proposed project area, approximately 235 acres, is an undeveloped, previously disturbed area that is bound by IL Route 4 on the east, Norfolk Southern Railway to the south, and the Airport to the north and west. A paved Airport service road runs south from Airport Boulevard on the west side of the proposed project area. Crooked Creek, a low-level perennial stream, runs north-south through the center of the proposed project area. The land surrounding the proposed project area is farmland to the north, east, and south, and the Airport to the west.

Short Form Environmental Assessment Page 9 Revision: 2007-10-01 A

9. Environmental Consequences. For EA Format and Content please refer to FAA Order 5050.4B, Paragraph 706, or subsequent revisions. For more information and direction to complete each category, review information contained in FAA Order 1050.1E, Appendix A or FAA Order 5050.4B, Table 7-1. (1) NOISE (a) Does the proposal require a noise analysis per FAA Order 1050.1E, Appendix A? Explain. (Note: Noise sensitive land uses are defined in Table 1 of FAR Part 150). Yes No The proposed project involves ADG III aircraft operating at an airport whose forecast operations in the period covered by the NEPA document would exceed 90,000 annual propeller operations (247 average daily operations) or 700 annual jet operations (2 average daily operations); therefore, a noise analysis is required.3 The analysis of aircraft noise in this NEPA document uses an aviation forecast prepared before the COVID-19 public health emergency began. The forecast used provides a conservative estimate of potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. However, it is necessary to acknowledge the impacts of the COVID-19 public health emergency on aviation activity, including reduced confidence in growth projections using currently available data. The aircraft noise analysis was conducted to address the future aircraft noise environment and potential noise impacts related to the proposed project compared to the No Action Alternative. For this noise analysis, the Department of Defense (DoD) NOISEMAP computer software was used in conjunction with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Aviation Environmental Design Tool (AEDT) to calculate the average annual day Day/Night Noise Levels (DNL). Both models are approved by the FAA for use for detailed aircraft noise analysis.4 The DNL noise exposure contours depicting DNL 65, 70, 75 decibel (dB) and higher were prepared for 2019 baseline conditions (see Exhibit 6) and the proposed project and No Action Alternative for 2024 (the first full operational year) and 2029 (a 5-year look ahead). The proposed project would manufacture ADG III aircraft. Specifications of the actual aircraft to be manufactured at the proposed aviation development was not available for purposes of this analysis. Based on information provided regarding similar aircraft profiles and sizes, and due to the availability of flight profiles in AEDT, a Boeing 737-700 with 1CM007 engines was selected to be used in the analysis as the design aircraft for the two future year proposed project scenarios (2024 and 2029). The noise model input assumptions, noise modeling methodology, and the resulting noise contours and impact analysis are presented in Attachment A. The proposed project would not affect aircraft operations at Scott Air Force Base; therefore, only Runway 14L-32R is shown on the EA exhibits. Existing and future year noise exposure contours associated with the proposed project and No Action Alternative for both Scott Air Force Base and BLV are included in Attachment A. Construction of the proposed project would temporarily increase ground-borne vibration and the level of noise at and within the immediate vicinity of the proposed project area. The noise generated by construction activity would not be significantly greater than the noise generally experienced at the Airport. Nighttime construction activities are not anticipated. Construction activities would last approximately 2 years.

3 US Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, Appendix B, July 16, 2015. 4 US Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Environment and Energy, 1050.1F Desk Reference, Paragraph 11.1.4, “FAA-Approved Models for Detailed Noise Analysis,” February 2020.

Short Form Environmental Assessment Page 10 Revision: 2007-10-01 A

(b) If "yes," determine whether the proposed project is likely to have a significant impact on noise levels over noise sensitive areas within the DNL 65 dBA noise contour. Implementation of the proposed project would result in a minor change in aircraft operations due to the additional aircraft operations (less than 1 additional operation per day). A comparison between the proposed project and No Action Alternative for 2024 and 2029 was conducted to determine the potential for significant impacts in aircraft noise as defined in FAA Order 1050.1F.5 In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, a proposed project would be considered to have a significant impact in regard to aviation noise, when compared to the No Action Alternative for the same timeframe, if it would increase noise by DNL 1.5 A- weighted decibels (dBA) or more for a noise-sensitive area that is exposed to noise at or above the DNL 65 dB noise exposure level, or expose a noise-sensitive area at or above the DNL 65 dB level due to a DNL 1.5 dB or greater increase. The FAA defines DNL 65 dB as the threshold of noise compatibility for residential and other noise-sensitive land uses, such as schools, libraries, and religious facilities.6 Under the No Action Alternative, none of the proposed aviation development would be constructed. The No Action Alternative would not affect (increase or decrease) the number of aircraft operations or the routing of aircraft in the air to and from BLV. The 2024 No Action Alternative DNL 65, 70, and 75 dB and higher noise contours are shown on Exhibit 7. Based on existing land uses, no residential units or other noise-sensitive land uses would be located within the No Action Alternative DNL 65 dB or higher noise contour area for the 2024 operational year. The proposed project for operational year 2024 would result in a minor increase in the number of aircraft and runup operations, as compared to the No Action Alternative, due to the additional operations associated with the proposed aviation development. As illustrated on Exhibit 8, the proposed project would create small changes in 2024 noise exposure contours, as compared to the 2024 No Action Alternative. However, the increase in noise exposure would be entirely within Airport property. Based on existing land uses, no noise sensitive land uses would be located within the proposed project DNL 65 dB or higher noise contour area for the 2024 operational year. Based on a comparison of the proposed project and the No Action Alternative for operational year 2024, no noise-sensitive land uses would experience a significant impact, which is an increase of DNL 1.5 dB or higher within the DNL 65 dB and higher noise contour area. The area experiencing an increase of DNL 1.5 dB or higher increase under the proposed project in 2024 would be associated with aircraft runups adjacent to the proposed manufacturing facility located on Airport property within the proposed project area, as shown on Exhibit 9. Under the No Action Alternative, none of the proposed aviation development would be constructed. The No Action Alternative would not affect (increase or decrease) the number of aircraft operations at BLV or the routing of aircraft in the air to and from BLV. The 2029 No Action Alternative DNL 65, 70, and 75 dB and higher noise contours are shown on Exhibit 10. Based on existing land uses, no residential units or other sensitive land uses, would be located within the No Action Alternative DNL 65 dB or higher noise contour area for the 2029 operational year.

5 US Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, Julye 16, 2015. 6 14 CFR Part 150, Appendix A, Table 1.

Short Form Environmental Assessment Page 11 Revision: 2007-10-01 A

The proposed project for operational year 2029 would result in a small increase in the number of aircraft and runup operations when compared to the No Action Alternative. As illustrated on Exhibit 11, the proposed project would cause small changes in noise exposure at the proposed aviation development in 2029 as compared to the 2029 No Action Alternative. However, the increase in noise exposure would be entirely within Airport property, which is not considered noise- sensitive use. Based on a comparison of the proposed project and No Action Alternative for operational year 2029, no noise-sensitive land uses would experience an increase of DNL 1.5 dB or higher within the DNL 65 dB and higher noise contour area. Therefore, the proposed additional operations at BLV would not result in a significant impact in noise exposure to residents and other noise-sensitive land uses. As shown on Exhibit 9, the area within the DNL 1.5 dB or higher increase for 2029 would be the same as the DNL 1.5 dB or higher increase for 2024, as it is anticipated the same number of runups would occur adjacent to the proposed manufacturing facility. There are no noise-sensitive areas located in the proposed project DNL 65 or higher exposure area that would be exposed to a DNL 1.5 dB or higher increase as a result of implementing the proposed project. The DNL 1.5 dB or higher increase contour from the proposed project would be located entirely on Airport property for both 2024 and 2029. Therefore, the proposed project would not cause a significant impact from aircraft noise on noise-sensitive areas exposed to DNL levels at or higher than 65 dB.

(2) COMPATIBLE LAND USE (a) Would the proposed project result in other (besides noise) impacts exceeding thresholds of significance that have land use ramifications, such as disruption of communities, relocation of residences or businesses, or impact natural resource areas? Explain. The Airport is in St. Clair County, Illinois, approximately 20 miles east of St. Louis, Missouri. The proposed project would be located entirely on Airport property. The proposed project area is designated as Airport and General Commercial by the City of Mascoutah surrounded by a mix of airport and farmland uses that are zoned Airport, General Commercial, and General Industrial.7 The nearest residences are approximately 1.8 miles south of the proposed project area in the City of Mascoutah. One hotel, Best Western Plus, is approximately one mile north of the proposed project area. The proposed project is compatible with existing aviation- related uses and would not require relocation of residences or businesses. Development of the proposed project southeast of the passenger terminal is consistent with the 2010 Approved ALP, which identified the site for future Airport development.

7 City of Mascoutah, City of Mascoutah Zoning, St. Clair County, Illinois, July 2020.

Short Form Environmental Assessment Page 12 Revision: 2007-10-01 A

Fuel storage must comply with FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 150/5300-13A, Change 1, Airport Design, which states objects non-essential to air navigation and ground maneuvering purposes are prohibited in the runway object free area (ROFA) and fuel storage facilities may not be located in the RPZ.8 FAA Order 5190.6B reiterates that RPZs must remain clear of incompatible objects.9 The proposed site is located outside of the existing and future arrival and departure RPZ and ROFA for Runway 14L-32R. Additionally, 14 CFR Part 77, Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace, establishes standards for determining obstructions to air navigation by defining criteria for imaginary surfaces that must not be pierced by any structure, including aircraft manufacturing and maintenance facilities.10 Proposed structures would be a maximum 70 feet high and would not be located under a runway departure or arrival path; the proposed project would not infringe upon Part 77 imaginary surfaces. A line of sight analysis was conducted to determine if the Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) would have a clear view of the movement area that connects Runway 32R with the entrance to the proposed aviation development. The analysis determined that a person in the ATCT would be able to see 210 feet beyond the Taxiway K centerline towards the entrance of the proposed aviation development. Additionally, there are no trees or surface penetrations that would obstruct the view of the movement area.11 The proposed project would be constructed on Airport-owned property on an undeveloped area southeast of the passenger terminal. The proposed project would be compatible with the existing and future land use and zoning plans for the area, the 2010 Approved ALP, and applicable FAA ACs.

(b) Would the proposed project be located near or create a wildlife hazard as defined in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-33A, "Wildlife Hazards on and Near Airports"? Explain. The proposed project area is an undeveloped, previously disturbed parcel of land. Vegetation consists of both native and non-native grasses, shrubs, and tree species. Most trees and shrubs are concentrated along the banks of Crooked Creek. The Airport periodically mows the airfield portion of the proposed project area to limit potential wildlife habitat. The proposed project area east of Crooked Creek is currently being farmed. Under the proposed project, existing vegetation, which provides limited wildlife habitat, would be removed. All proposed landscaping would comply with the BLV WHMP and utilize plant species identified by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) to limit the site’s attractiveness to wildlife that may be hazardous to Airport operations. To limit the presence of standing water, the proposed dry detention basin would be designed to drain within 48 hours in accordance with FAA AC 150/5200-33C, Wildlife Hazards on or near Airports, and would remain dry between rain events.12 The Tenant would provide and use suitable receptacles for all refuse in accordance with FAA AC 150/5200-33C to avoid the creation of hazardous wildlife attractants.

8 US Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A, Airport Design Change 1, February 26, 2014. 9 US Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Airport Compliance Manual, Order 5190.6B, September 30, 2009. 10 Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 77, Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of the Navigable Airspace, January 1, 2012. 11 Crawford, Murphy & Tilly, MidAmerica St. Louis Airport, Aerospace Development, ALP Narrative, August 2020. 12 US Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular 150/5200-33C, Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or near Airports, Section 2.3.2, February 21, 2020.

Short Form Environmental Assessment Page 13 Revision: 2007-10-01 A

(3) SOCIAL IMPACTS

(a) Would the proposed project cause relocation of any homes or businesses? Yes No Explain. If Yes, describe the availability of adequate relocation facilities. The proposed project area is located entirely on Airport property and is undeveloped farmland. There are no homes or businesses on or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project area. The nearest homes are approximately 0.6 miles northeast of the proposed project area and the nearest businesses are approximately 1.1 miles northwest. The homes are separated from the proposed project area by IL Route 4 and the businesses are north of I-64. The proposed project would provide temporary construction and permanent employment opportunities for local residents.

(b) Would the proposed project cause an alteration in surface traffic patterns, or cause a noticeable increase in surface traffic congestion? Yes No Explain. Section 163(d) of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 limits the FAA’s review and approval authority for ALPs to those portions of ALPs or ALP revisions that materially impact the safe and efficient operation of aircraft at, to, or from an airport; adversely affect the safety of people or property on the ground adjacent to an airport as a result of aircraft operations; or adversely affect the value of prior federal investments to a significant extent. Exhibits 1 and 2 show the project elements the FAA has determined that they have authority over and those they do not. The two (2) new signalized intersections discussed below would not be subject to FAA approval authority; however, they are dependent on an element that requires FAA approval (i.e., the proposed aircraft manufacturing facility) in order to be constructed or operated as planned. Therefore, the environmental effects of the two (2) new signalized intersections are “caused by” the proposed federal action and must be examined under NEPA as effects of the federal action. The Airport is coordinating with Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) on these intersection improvements. The proposed project area is adjacent to the airfield and west of IL Route 4. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would increase traffic from construction employees and deliveries. IL Route 4 is a two-lane roadway (one lane in each direction) that runs north-south. There is an additional southbound lane and concrete median between the I-64 ramp and Airport Boulevard. The IL Route 4 and Airport Boulevard intersection is three-legged and unsignalized. The southbound approach on IL Route 4 has one through lane and one channelized right turn lane. IL Route 4 northbound approach has one through lane and one dedicated left turn lane. The northeast bound approach on Airport Boulevard is stop controlled with one dedicated left turn lane and one dedicated right turn lane. A traffic study conducted for the proposed project looked at the 2020 No Build (existing traffic conditions), 2022 No Build (traffic conditions with no proposed development), and 2022 Build (traffic conditions with proposed development) conditions. The Airport is coordinating with the IDOT, who recommended a conservative annual growth rate in background traffic of 2 percent to better determine the impacts of the proposed project on the roadway system. The existing traffic counts used the 2 percent growth rate to account for increases in background traffic growth and other developments not associated with the proposed project. The traffic study is provided in Attachment B.

Short Form Environmental Assessment Page 14 Revision: 2007-10-01 A

According to IDOT traffic counts, the average annual daily traffic count on IL Route 4 from Airport Boulevard to IL 161 is 8,450 and 8,750 from I-64 to Airport Boulevard (2019 traffic counts).13 The traffic counts collected in July 2020 were used to determine weekday peak hours at intersections. Traffic counts taken during the COVID-19 pandemic do not represent the typical traffic demands of the roadway system, especially around the Airport due to the reduced travel demands. Therefore, the July 2020 traffic counts were adjusted by 30 to 50 percent to replicate pre-COVID traffic volumes. The percentage increase was calculated through a comparison of the peak hours along IL Route 4 with directional counts from April 2019 provided by the IDOT. The proposed aviation development would have one (1) new intersection with IL Route 4 for access to the proposed development. The intersection would be signalized with a new northbound left turn lane, southbound right turn lane, and eastbound right turn lane. In addition to the proposed aviation development entrance, a new traffic signal would be installed at the intersection of Airport Boulevard and IL Route 4; no additional geometric improvements at this intersection would be required. When introducing a new intersection, the designer must ensure that there is sufficient distance between the new and adjacent intersections so that they form distinct intersections. Short distances between intersections should be avoided, as practical, because they may impede traffic operations.14 The proposed signalized entrance to the proposed aviation development would be approximately 2,000 feet southeast of the Airport Boulevard/IL Route 4 proposed signalized intersection. The July 2020 traffic study was conducted to identify existing traffic patterns near the proposed project area, estimate the traffic that would be generated by the proposed project, and propose strategies to mitigate any traffic issues (see Attachment B). The ability for an intersection to accommodate traffic flow is based on the average control delay experienced by vehicles passing through the intersection. Intersections are assigned a level of service (LOS) ranging from A to F. LOS A has the best traffic flow and least delay; whereas LOS F experiences oversaturated conditions and extensive delays. Table 2 lists the LOS definitions.

TABLE 2: LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR INTERSECTIONS Level of Service Description A Minimal delay and few stops B Low delay with more stops C Light congestion D Congestion is more noticeable with longer delays E High delays and number of stops F Unacceptable delays over capacity SOURCE: Crawford, Murphy & Tilly, MidAmerica Airport (BLV) Aerospace Development Traffic Impact Study, October 2020. Manual traffic counts were conducted during morning peak-hours (7:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.) and evening peak-hours (4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.). The LOS for each of the intersections that would be utilized for access to the Airport and the proposed aviation development under existing conditions (2020), No Action Alternative (2022), and proposed project (2022) are listed in Table 3.

13 Illinois Department of Transportation, http://www.gettingaroundillinois.com/gai.htm?mt=aadt (accessed September 24, 2020).

Short Form Environmental Assessment Page 15 Revision: 2007-10-01 A

TABLE 3: EXISTING AND FUTURE INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE

Morning Peak Hours Evening Peak Hours Proposed Proposed Intersection Existing No Action Project Existing No Action Action IL 4 and WB I-64 LOS A LOS A LOS A LOS B LOS B LOS B IL 4 and EB I-64 LOS B LOS B LOS B LOS B LOS B LOS C IL 4 and Airport LOS B LOS B1 LOS A2 LOS C LOS C1 LOS B2 Boulevard IL 4 and IL 161 LOS C LOS C LOS C LOS C LOS C LOS C IL 4 and Proposed N/A N/A LOS A2 N/A N/A LOS B2 Development NOTES: EB – Eastbound WB – Westbound N/A – Not Applicable IL 4 – Illinois Route 4 IL 161 – Illinois Route 161 I-64 – Interstate 64 1 Unsignalized intersection 2 Signalized intersection SOURCE: Crawford, Murphy & Tilly, MidAmerica Airport (BLV) Aerospace Development Traffic Impact Study, October 2020. As shown in Table 3, the proposed project would not substantially reduce the LOS of surrounding intersections. Only the intersection of IL Route 4 and eastbound I- 64 would experience a lower LOS during evening peak hours (from LOS B to LOS C). The proposed traffic signal at the intersection of IL Route 4 and Airport Boulevard would improve the intersection LOS throughout the day (from LOS B to LOS A during peak morning hours and from LOS C to LOS B during evening peak hours). See Attachment B for detailed traffic count data. Once operational, the proposed aviation development would employ up to 400 employees, 250 individuals for production and up to 150 individuals for support activities. The employees would work three separate shifts, five days per week with a 40:40:20 ratio between shifts. Operational traffic would access the proposed aviation development a new access point off IL Route 4. The proposed project would generate approximately 140 additional trips into the proposed aviation development and 43 trips out in the morning; and approximately 60 trips out and 140 trips into the proposed development in the evening. With the proposed aviation development entrance and Airport Boulevard intersection improvement, the proposed project would not significantly affect surface transportation on Airport Boulevard or IL Route 4.

14 Illinois Department of Transportation, Bureau of Design and Environment Manual, Chapter 36 – Intersections, September 2020.

Short Form Environmental Assessment Page 16 Revision: 2007-10-01 A

(4) INDUCED SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS

Would the proposed project cause induced, or secondary, socioeconomic impacts to surrounding communities, such as change business and economic activity in a community; impact public service demands; induce shifts in population movement and growth, etc.? Yes No Explain. As shown on Exhibit 1, the proposed project would be in an undeveloped, vacant parcel of land where no housing has been developed or residences are located. Construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in any residential relocations, property acquisition, division or disruption of established communities, disruption of planned development, or significant changes in employment. The proposed project area was designated for future development in the 2010 Approved ALP. Developing the proposed aviation development would enable the Airport to achieve a revenue source from rent that would be greater than revenue generated by the current farming operations. Construction activities would result in temporary positive impacts to the regional economy through employment of construction workers and spending on materials. The proposed project would be constructed on Airport property; therefore, there would be no change in the availability of permanent housing, permanent employment, or retail opportunities. There would also be no permanent shifts in patterns of population movement and growth, public service demands, or changes in business or economic activity. Similarly, operation of the proposed aviation development is expected to have a positive socioeconomic impact on economic activity and employment. The operation of the proposed aviation development would result in the employment of up to 400 individuals, which would result in increased spending in the local economy, resulting in a beneficial economic impact. The St. Louis region has historically been home to aircraft manufacturing facilities; therefore, it is presumed that employees with the required skills are available in the St. Louis greater metropolitan area. The proposed project is not anticipated to drive residential development, a shift in population movement and growth patterns, or place an undue burden on public service demands.

(5) AIR QUALITY

(a) Does the proposed project have the potential to increase airside or landside capacity including an increase in capacity to handle surface vehicles? Yes No If Yes, please explain here. The proposed aviation development would produce and deliver 15 aircraft per year. Each aircraft delivery would require a chase aircraft (also assumed to be a Boeing 737-700), resulting in a total of 30 aircraft flights per year with each delivery assumed to require 1.5 flights, resulting in 45 check flights per year. The actual delivery flights would include 15 flights by the manufactured aircraft that takes off from, but does not return to the Airport, along with 15 chase aircraft that takeoff from and return to the Airport. Therefore, total annual delivery flights would include 15 operations (departure only) by the manufactured aircraft and 30 operations (departure and arrival) by the chase aircraft, for a total of 45 operations per year. The 45 check flight operations plus 45 delivery-related operations would result in a total of 90 itinerant aircraft operations per year. In addition to these itinerant operations, each of the 15 manufactured aircraft would conduct 5 touch- and-go operations, for an additional 75 operations per year. Therefore, a total of 165 annual aircraft operations was modeled for purposes of the air quality analysis and represents the incremental number of aircraft operations that would occur with the proposed aviation development.

Short Form Environmental Assessment Page 17 Revision: 2007-10-01 A

Ground support equipment (GSE) includes a wide variety of vehicles used to service aircraft. Aircraft operations associated with the proposed aviation development would not include the enplanement or deplanement of passengers, baggage, or cargo. For purposes of this EA, one (1) diesel aircraft tractor/pushback tug and one (1) 8,000- to 10,000-gallon fuel truck were assumed to operate for each aircraft operation. The proposed aviation development would operate five days per week with three 8- hour shifts for up to 400 employees per day (250 employees for production and 150 employees for support). It was assumed that each employee would travel to and from the site in a private passenger vehicle, resulting in 400 roundtrips per day, at an assumed distance of 40 miles per roundtrip. Total annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for these employees is, therefore, estimated at 5,840,000 (400 trips/day x 40 miles/trip x 260 days).

(b) Identify whether the project area is in a non-attainment or maintenance area for any of the six (6) criteria air pollutants having National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) established under the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA), and identify which pollutant(s) apply. If the proposed project is in an attainment area, no further air quality analysis is needed; skip to item (6) Water Quality. See information contained in the EPA Green Book at http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk for current attainment areas. Attainment Nonattainment If Nonattainment, list pollutants. The proposed project would be within St. Clair County, which is designated by the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) as a nonattainment area for 2015 8- hour average ozone (O3) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), marginal- maintenance area for the 2008 O3 NAAQS, and moderate-maintenance area for 1997 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) NAAQS. (c) Is an air quality analysis needed? (To screen for air quality effects, use information in Section 2, page AD-6 of the September 2004 addendum to FAA’s Air Quality Procedures for Civilian Airports and Air Force Bases handbook.) Yes, analysis needed . No, analysis not needed . If No, explain. An air quality analysis was completed in November 2020 and is provided as Attachment C.

(d)(1) Would the proposed action be an "exempted action," as defined in 40 CFR Part 51.853(c)(2) of the General Conformity Rule? Yes No If Yes, skip to item (6) Water Quality. List exemption claimed.

(d)(2) Would the increase in the emission level of the regulated air pollutants for which the project area is in non-attainment or maintenance exceed the de minimis standards? Yes No If Yes, contact an FAA/IDOT environmental specialist for further guidance. Table 4 compares the maximum annual construction emissions with the applicable de minimis thresholds. Even with the short-term increase in emissions from the construction of the proposed project, emission levels would be well below de minimis thresholds. Changes in criteria air pollutant emissions due to construction of the proposed project would not result in an adverse effect on air quality.

Short Form Environmental Assessment Page 18 Revision: 2007-10-01 A

TABLE 4: CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS COMPARISON TO DE MINIMIS

Emissions (tons/year)

Total Emission by Year CO VOC NOx SOx PM10 PM2.5 2021 4.125 5.873 5.429 0.048 0.725 0.067 2022 6.124 2.357 6.240 0.098 1.705 0.146 de minimis Threshold 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000 Significant? No No No No No No

NOTES: For purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that estimates of SOx emissions are equal to calculated emissions of SO2.

CO—Carbon Monoxide VOC—Volatile Organic Compound NOx—Oxides of Nitrogen SOx—Oxides of Sulfur PM10—Particulate Matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5—Particulate Matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter SOURCE: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., November 2020, based on inputs to the Airport Construction Emissions Inventory Tool (ACEIT), using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency NONROAD2008a and MOVES2014b emissions models. Generally, emissions standards (for nonroad and onroad vehicles in particular) are anticipated to be more stringent over time; therefore, pollutant emission rates for GSE and ground access vehicles would generally be anticipated to be lower in future years compared to those modeled for 2024. Emissions for subsequent years were not modeled since it is not assumed that aircraft or vehicle activity would increase or decrease in future years. Table 5 compares the maximum annual operational emissions with the applicable de minimis thresholds. As shown, the estimated operational emissions for 2024 would be well below de minimis thresholds and therefore, changes in criteria air pollutant emissions due to annual operation of the proposed aviation development would not result in an adverse effect on air quality.

TABLE 5: OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS COMPARISON TO DE MINIMIS

Emissions (tons/year)

Total Emission by Year CO VOC NOx SOx PM10 PM2.5 2024 9.390 0.073 6.924 0.959 0.125 0.053 de minimis Threshold 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000 100.000 Significant? No No No No No No

NOTES: For purposes of this analysis, it was assumed that estimates of SOx emissions are equal to calculated emissions of SO2. CO—Carbon Monoxide VOC—Volatile Organic Compound NOx—Oxides of Nitrogen

SOx—Oxides of Sulfur PM10—Particulate Matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.5—Particulate Matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter SOURCE: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., November 2020, based on output from the Federal Aviation Administration Aviation Environmental Design Tool, Version 3c, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency MOVES2014b emissions model.

(d)(3) Would the proposed project cause a violation of any NAAQS, delay the attainment of any NAAQS, or worsen any existing NAAQS violation? Yes No If Yes contact an FAA/IDOT environmental specialist for further guidance.

(d)(4) Would the proposed project conform to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) approved by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency? Yes No If No, contact an FAA/IDOT environmental specialist for further guidance.

Short Form Environmental Assessment Page 19 Revision: 2007-10-01 A

In conformity with the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the O3 NAAQS and the PM2.5 NAAQS, the proposed project would keep all excavated materials from land clearing activities on-airport to the maximum extent possible to minimize construction vehicle emissions and the use of area roadways by minimizing off- site disposal. Excavation and construction traffic associated with the proposed project is expected to be minimal. Additionally, operation of the proposed project would not result in a significant increase in traffic. As shown in Table 3, operation of the proposed project would not change the LOS on any intersection at the proposed project area, except the intersection of IL Route 4 with eastbound I-64, which would experience a lower LOS (from LOS B to LOS C) during evening peak hours.

6) WATER QUALITY

Describe the potential of the proposed project to impact water quality, including ground water, surface water bodies, any public water supply systems, etc. Explain and provide documentation of consultation with agencies having jurisdiction over such water bodies, as applicable. The proposed project area is an undeveloped, previously disturbed parcel of land. Topography of the proposed project area is relatively flat. The ground surface slopes towards Crooked Creek. Surface drainage from the proposed project area flows into Crooked Creek, which connects to Silver Creek. As shown on Exhibit 12, there are four (4) streams within the proposed project area. Crooked Creek and the Northwest Stream are low level perennial streams that run through the site and continue outside of the proposed project area. The proposed taxiway would include a bridge to span Crooked Creek so as not to interfere with water flow. The East Stream is an intermittent stream that fills with water from Crooked Creek, seasonal water tables, or heavy precipitation events, but is primarily dry. The East Stream is regulated under the jurisdiction of the USACE. As shown on Exhibit 12, construction of the proposed taxiway and aviation development would result in approximately half of the East Stream being filled (1,960 linear feet filled of total 4,200 linear feet). Because the direct impact from construction would affect a designated water of the US, the Airport and Tenant would pursue a CWA Section 404 permit from the USACE. The final quantity of compensatory mitigation would be determined based on final construction plans and discussions with the USACE, IEPA, and the Illinois Department of Natural Resources/Office of Water Resources (IDNR/OWR). The West Stream is also intermittent and only contains water during heavy precipitation events. Construction of the taxiway and the associated grading of the taxiway object free area would fill in the West Stream (600 linear feet). The West Stream is not under the jurisdiction of the USACE; therefore, no mitigation measures are required. Filling the West Stream would constitute a floodplain encroachment, which is discussed in detail in Item 12 – Floodplains. Additionally, there are two (2) wetlands within the proposed project area that are adjacent to existing Taxiway K. These wetlands would be filled to accommodate construction of the proposed taxiway and Airport service road. Wetlands are discussed in detail in Item 11 – Wetlands. The IEPA regulates water quality through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. The Airport and Tenant would submit Notices of Intent for NPDES permits to IEPA for individual permits for construction of the proposed taxiway and Airport service road, and proposed aviation development, respectively.

Short Form Environmental Assessment Page 20 Revision: 2007-10-01 A

Airport industrial activities are covered under permit ILR00542 with a separate permit for discharging aircraft deicing fluid wastewater (2019-EP-64648). The proposed taxiway and Airport service road would be covered under this permit. No deicing activities are anticipated; however, should deicing be needed, the existing collection area on the Airport would be used. Deicing fluid is collected and discharged to the City of Mascoutah wastewater treatment plant. A series of stormwater infiltration basins would be constructed at the proposed aviation development. The infiltration basins would be vegetated and designed to handle stormwater runoff from the new impervious surface associated with the proposed aviation development. Runoff would drain from stormwater infiltration basins through a storm sewer into Crooked Creek, as well as sheet flow directly to the creek. Stormwater and sanitary sewer systems would be connected to existing infrastructure. Stormwater volume control would be provided by one (1) dry detention basin in the south portion of the proposed project area. Stormwater runoff from the new impervious surfaces would flow through storm sewers and vegetated stormwater infiltration basins prior to entering the proposed dry detention basin. The proposed dry detention basin would be designed to drain within 48 hours of a rain event. It would be vegetated with bottom slopes of 2 percent minimum and would drain via a structural outlet that would connect to existing infrastructure. Flat side slopes (maximum 4:1) and grading of the proposed dry detention basin would promote ease of maintenance activities (mowing) to minimize the potential for vegetation growth (wildlife attractant). The proposed dry detention basin would be hydrologically connected to Crooked Creek because they are in the same drainage basin. The proposed dry detention basin would be constructed at an elevation above the 100-year high water elevation for Crooked Creek, which would allow stormwater runoff to be collected in in the basin and slowly released to the creek to minimize potential flooding. After construction of the proposed dry detention basin, the area would be seeded and mulched to prevent erosion. Project-specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs) for construction activities would be prepared for the proposed taxiway and Airport service road and taxiway by the Airport, and for the proposed aviation development by the Tenant. The SWPPPs would indicate surface drainage patterns, the extent of site disturbance, and the various soil erosion and sedimentation controls planned to be used on site. The Illinois Urban Manual15 would be used to reference and select best management practices (BMPs) for inclusion in the SWPPPs. The construction SWPPPs would identify BMPs to prevent erosion of soil disturbed during construction, plans for preventing and responding to spills, and standards for handling materials to reduce the likelihood of spills, as well as other measures for protecting surface waters on and near the construction site from sediment and other pollutants that could affect the quality of stormwater discharges. Construction of the proposed taxiway and Airport service road would comply with FAA AC 150/5370-10H, Standard Specifications for Construction of Airports, specifically Item C-102, Temporary Air and Water Pollution, Soil Erosion, and Siltation Control.16 The Tenant of the proposed aviation development would be encouraged to also comply with FAA regulations. With BMPs defined to reduce or eliminate sediment and other pollutants in stormwater runoff and non- stormwater discharges during construction activities, impacts to surface waters would not be significant.

15 Association of Illinois Soil and Water Conservation Districts, Illinois Urban Manual, June 2013. 16 US Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular 150/5370-10H, Standard Specifications for Construction of Airports, December 21, 2018.

Short Form Environmental Assessment Page 21 Revision: 2007-10-01 A

No public groundwater sources are located within Airport property. Construction of the proposed project would have the potential to disturb soils below the water table, but clean fill materials would be used to avoid negative impacts to groundwater quality. Under the NPDES permit(s) for construction, the contractor(s) would be required to implement a construction SWPPP and Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) plans to protect groundwater from pollution during construction. Additionally, no sole source aquifer would be impacted by construction of the proposed project. With no direct groundwater impacts and measures in place to prevent pollutants in stormwater, construction of the proposed project would not significantly affect groundwater resources.

(7) DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SECTION ACT OF 1966, SECTION 4(F) RECODIFIED AT 49 U.S.C. §303(C)

Does the proposed project require the use of any publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife or waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local significance, or land of an historic site of national, state, or local significance? Explain and provide justification for your response. Include concurrence of appropriate officials having jurisdiction over such land regarding the use determination, if applicable. There are no Department of Transportation (DOT) Section 4(f) or 6(f) resources located in the vicinity of the proposed project area. The proposed increase in flight operations would be minor compared to existing conditions (approximately 90 additional operations per year) and would not result in a noticeable change to existing noise contours. Therefore, no direct or indirect/constructive impacts to DOT Section 4(f) or 6(f) resources are anticipated.

(8) HISTORIC, ARCHITECTURAL, ARCHEOLOGICAL, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES

(a) Describe any impact the proposed project might have on any properties in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Provide justification for your response, and include a record of your consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), if applicable. The proposed project area is in a previously disturbed area; a portion of the area is currently being farmed, with no known, historical, architectural, archaeological, or cultural resources present. A review of the National Register of Historic Places did not show any properties or resources located at the Airport. The nearest resource listed in the National Register is the Berger-Kiel House located approximately 2.5 miles south of the proposed project area. In compliance with National Historic Preservation Act and Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act regulations, in the event of an unanticipated discovery of previously unidentified historic, archaeological, or cultural resources during construction of the proposed project, all activities in the vicinity of the discovery would stop, and all reasonable measures taken to avoid or minimize harm to the resources until after consultation with the Illinois State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). Although unlikely, should construction activities uncover human remains, all activity that might disturb the remains shall cease and may not resume until authorized by the County Coroner.

Short Form Environmental Assessment Page 22 Revision: 2007-10-01 A

(b) Describe whether there is reason to believe that significant scientific, prehistoric, historic, archeological, or paleontological resources would be lost or destroyed as a result of the proposed project. Include a record of consultation with persons or organizations with relevant expertise, including the SHPO, if applicable. A review of the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency Historic Architectural Resources Geographic Information System (HARGIS) indicates there are four rural survey properties with structures in the vicinity of the proposed project area; however, none of these structures currently exist. They were likely removed during the construction of the Airport. Therefore, no significant project-related impacts are anticipated. The proposed project area was previously inventoried for archaeological resources as part of the Section 106 process for the Joint Use Airport Development Environmental Impact Statement, which resulted in the development of an archaeological plan for the Airport. Twenty-two archaeological sites were identified and are maintained in accordance with the Airport Archaeological Plan. None of these sites are within the proposed project area. The Airport Archaeological Plan was updated in 2019 and no new sites were identified within the proposed project area. Therefore, no impacts to known archaeological resources would result from the construction and implementation of the proposed project. Because ground disturbing activities would occur in previously disturbed and inventoried areas, it is unlikely that any previously undocumented resources would be encountered during construction.

(9) BIOTIC COMMUNITIES

Describe the potential of the proposed project to directly or indirectly impact plant communities and/or the displacement of wildlife. This answer should also reference Item (6), Water Quality, if jurisdictional water bodies are present. The proposed project would occur entirely on Airport property in previously disturbed areas consisting of active farmland, maintained grassland, and unmaintained grass, shrubs, and trees. As shown on Exhibit 1, due to the managed nature of the vegetation witihn the proposed project area, limited quality wildlife habitat is present. Wildlife species that occur in the proposed project area are generally tolerant of human presence and activity associated with the Airport. The BLV Wildlife Hazard Management Plan describes small populations of mammalian species at the Airport including deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus), thirteen-lined ground squirrel (Spermophilus tridecemlineatus), Eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus), groundhog (Marmota monax), coyote (Canis latrans), raccoons (Procyon lotor), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda), prairie vole (Microtus ochrogaster), and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Other wildlife species observed include a variety of birds including waterfowl (geese and ducks), gulls, raptors, jays, songbirds, swifts, swallows, crows, and blackbirds. Construction of the proposed project may cause the potential disturbance of these highly adaptable biotic species. There are four (4) streams and two (2) wetlands within the proposed project area. Crooked Creek and the Northwest Stream are low level perennial streams that run through the site and continue outside of the proposed project area. The West Stream and East Stream are intermittent streams that fill with water after heavy precipitation events from Crooked Creek and/or seasonal water tables.

Short Form Environmental Assessment Page 23 Revision: 2007-10-01 A

The two (2) wetlands would be filled to accommodate construction of the proposed taxiway and Airport service road. These wetlands and the associated impacts are discussed in detail in Item 11 – Wetlands. Construction of the proposed taxiway and aviation development would result in approximately 1,900 linear feet of the East Stream being filled. Streams within the proposed project area and associated impacts are discussed in Item 6 – Water Quality. (10) FEDERAL AND STATE-LISTED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES

Would the proposed project impact any federally- or state-listed or proposed endangered or threatened species of flora and fauna, or impact critical habitat? Attach ECOCAT consultation with IDNR and other records of consultation efforts with jurisdictional agencies, if applicable. Yes No Explain. The proposed project area is a previously disturbed area that contains vegetation capable of supporting limited wildlife. Online assessment tools provided by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) were utilized to determine the potential presence of state and federal listed species. These assessments are provided in Attachment D. According to the IDNR Ecological Compliance Assessment Tool (EcoCAT), there is the potential for the presence of the Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) and Northern Long-eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis). In addition to the two bat species, the USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) identified four additional species that may be present in the proposed project area: least tern (Sterna antillarum), pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus), Ilinois cave amphipod (Gammarus acherondytes), and decurrent false aster (Boltonia decurrens). However, habitat for these species is not present in the proposed project area. Additionally, there are no designated critical habitats within the proposed project area. No bald or golden eagle nests are known to occur at BLV or within the vicinity of the proposed project area. As shown on Exhibit 15, the proposed project would remove approximately 9.5 acres of trees, shrubs, and other vegetation to accommodate construction of the proposed aviation development and taxiway. The trees would be removed from November 1 through March 31, to the extent possible, when bats are likely to be hibernating. The tree removal area was surveyed November 6, 2021 by a qualified biologist to determine if suitable trees are present to provide bat habitat. Five (5) suitable habitat trees were found within the proposed removal area, they have been clearly marked and shall not be cut between April 1 through October 31. Suitable habitat trees are defined as trees greater than 5 inches diameter breast height (dbh) with exfoliating bark and other features potentially utilized by roosting bats. All non-suitable trees may be cut at any time. If the above recommendations are adopted, the IDNR has determined that impacts to the Indiana and Northern Long-eared bats are unlikely (see Attachment D).

Short Form Environmental Assessment Page 24 Revision: 2007-10-01 A

(11) WETLANDS

(a) Does the proposed project involve the modification of delineated wetlands under the USACE Regulatory Program pursuant to Section 404(a) of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (wetlands must be delineated using the USACE 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual. Yes No If Yes, list wetland type, amount, and mitigation actions. The proposed project area was surveyed June 29, 2020 to determine the presence of wetlands and two (2) wetlands were identified.17 One is a freshwater emergent wetland, approximately 0.61 acres, located in a depression next to Taxiway K, shown as Wetland 1 on Exhibit 12. The second wetland, Wetland 2, is a freshwater emergent wetland, approximately 0.05 acres, located in a depression next to Taxiway K, approximately 680 feet northwest of Wetland 1. Construction of the proposed project would directly impact Wetlands 1 and 2. As shown on Exhibit 12, approximately 0.66 total acres of wetlands would be filled to support construction of the proposed taxiway and Airport service road. The two (2) wetlands are not regulated under the jurisdiction of the USACE; therefore, no CWA Section 404 permit would be required. The compensatory mitigation would be determined based on final construction plans and coordination with IEPA and IDNR/OWR. Compensatory mitigation would be achieved by purchase of stream and wetland credits from the Little Muddy Stream and Wetland Bank. If there are no stream or wetland credits available from this bank, compensatory mitigation would be accomplished using the in-lieu fee program administered by the IDNR/OWR. Detailed information from the wetland survey is provided in Attachment E. Multiple taxiway alignments were considered to avoid impacting wetlands. To completely avoid Wetlands 1 and 2, the portion of the proposed taxiway that would run parallel to Taxiway K would need to be shifted approximately 220 feet north of the preferred alignment (See Exhibit 13). However, this would add an additional 3.7 acres of impervious surface. An second alignment approximately 220 feet north of the preferred alignment would add 0.9 acres of impervious surface and the grading required for the taxiway object free area adjacent to the taxiway connector to Taxiway K would permanently impact 0.2 acres of Wetland 1 (see Exhibit 14). It was determined that a taxiway crossing Crooked Creek at a 90-degree angle would minimize the length of the bridge structure and subsequent impacts to the creek and surrounding terrain. Therefore, the taxiway alignments considered all have the same taxiway stream crossing location and volume of impacts.

(b) Does the proposed project involve State funds or regulation that requires adherence to the Illinois Interagency Wetlands Policy Act of 1989? Yes No If Yes, list wetland type, amount, and mitigation actions.

17 Horner and Shifrin, Inc., Memorandum – MidAmerica Wetland Delineation Report, June 29, 2020.

Short Form Environmental Assessment Page 25 Revision: 2007-10-01 A

(12) FLOODPLAINS

(a) Attach the corresponding FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) or other documentation showing the project area. Map attached? Yes No If No, explain. The proposed project area is situated within FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) numbers 17163C0240D and 17163C0245D (see Attachment F). As shown on Exhibit 12, the 100-year floodplain follows the seasonal streams and Crooked Creek. Both FIRMs are effective November 5, 2003; however, they do not show the runway for the Airport (see Attachment F). The floodplain was revised when Crooked Creek was rerouted to allow construction of the Airport in the mid 1990s; therefore, the FIRMs do not accurately represent existing conditions. Exhibit 12 shows the current 100-year floodplain within the proposed project area.

(b) Would the proposed project be located in, or would it encroach upon, any 100- year floodplains, as designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)? Yes No As shown on Exhibit 12, the majority of the proposed project would occur outside of the 100-year floodplain except for portions of the proposed taxiway and Airport service road. Construction within the floodplain was unavoidable because the floodplain runs parallel to Taxiway K. The need to provide aircraft access to Runway 14L-32R from the proposed aviation development would require a taxiway connector and the Airport service road cannot be inside the taxiway object free area for Taxiway K; therefore, both elements would need to be constructed within the floodplain.

If Yes, provide a detailed explanation of the measures by which the project would ensure no unfavorable impacts to the 100-year floodplain. Provide correspondence from appropriate regulatory agencies indicating their concurrence with the proposal. Construction of the proposed taxiway and Airport service road would constitute an encroachment of the 100-year floodplain with grading and paving of approximately 7.2 acres of land within the floodplain (6.7 acres for taxiway construction and 0.5 acres for Airport service road). The proposed Airport service road alignment was designed to minimize floodplain encroachment while staying outside the taxiway object free area.

Short Form Environmental Assessment Page 26 Revision: 2007-10-01 A

Floodplain encroachment could not be avoided with the proposed project because the floodplain runs parallel to Taxiway K; therefore, any taxiway connector would have to be constructed in the floodplain. The proposed location of the taxiway connector to Taxiway K was determined to be the preferred alternative because it would avoid direct access to Runway 14L-32R and minimize the area of floodplain encroachment. Constructing the taxiway connector southeast of the proposed location would reduce the area of floodplain encroachment; however, it would permanently impact Wetland 1 and provide direct access to Runway 14L-32R. FAA AC 150/5300-13A, Airport Design, states that taxiway connectors that cross over a parallel taxiway and directly onto a runway should be avoided. The AC also states a direct connection from an apron to a parallel taxiway at the end of a runway contributes to runway incursion incidents.18 Therefore, the taxiway connector cannot be shifted southeast of the proposed location. Alternatively, shifting the connector northwest would still require development in the floodplain and would increase the area of floodplain encroachment when compared to the proposed connector location. The proposed taxiway would also include a bridge to span Crooked Creek and minimize ground disturbance in the floodplain. The alignment of the proposed taxiway bridge crossing was determined by surveying the creek bed and developing three alternative alignments that would minimize the length of the bridge structure and subsequent impacts to the creek and surrounding terrain. The selected 90-degree crossing was the best combination of minimizing the length of the bridge structure and reducing the hydraulic impact while still meeting the needs of the proposed aviation development. Because a 90-degree crossing minimizes impacts, it was used in all taxiway alignment alternatives. This resulted in the filling of the West Stream and associated floodplain for all alternatives. The West Stream primarily dry; therefore, its associated floodplain comprises a minimal amount of the total floodplain encroachment (0.8 acres). The proposed taxiway alignment was designed with the shortest total length of bridge crossing Crooked Creek, which would allow stormwater to runoff taxiway pavement into adjacent vegetated areas for filtration rather than direct discharge to the stream through bridge deck drains. Additionally, the support piers for the crossing were spread out as far as possible to reduce the total number of piers that would be needed, thus limiting ground disturbance within the floodplain as well as objects that could impede water flow. A dry detention basin would be constructed in the south portion of the proposed project area to provide compensatory storage and offset potential effects from the increase in pavement. Additionally, the proposed aviation development would include on-site stormwater infiltration basins that would connect to existing drains and storm sewers to accommodate any increases in runoff due to new impervious surfaces. A significant impact to a floodplain would occur if the action would cause a considerable probability of loss of human life, result in interruption or loss of service of transportation facilities, or have notable adverse impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values, as defined in DOT Order 5650.2, Floodplain Management and Protection. The natural and beneficial values of this floodplain include its ability to carry and store floodwaters, sustain aquatic and terrestrial organisms, provide for groundwater recharge, and maintain water quality. Other natural and beneficial values of floodplains include the ability to sustain agriculture or aquaculture or provide recreational opportunities. Construction of the proposed Airport service

18 US Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular 150/5300-13A, Airport Design Change 1, February 26, 2014.

Short Form Environmental Assessment Page 27 Revision: 2007-10-01 A

road, taxiway, dry detention basin, and stormwater infiltration basins would not affect the natural and beneficial values of the floodplain as the area would continue to provide for floodwater storage, sustain aquatic and terrestrial organisms, provide for groundwater recharge, and maintain water quality. The proposed dry detention basin and stormwater infiltration basins would accommodate the additional stormwater storage capacity required from the increase in impervious surface area that would occur with construction of the proposed project. Therefore, this floodplain encroachment would not reduce flood storage capabilities, such that a risk to human life or transportation facilities would result and the floodplain encroachment resulting from construction of the proposed project would not be significant.

(13) COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

(a) Would the proposed project occur in, or affect, a coastal zone, as defined by a state's Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP)? Yes No Explain. The Illinois coastal zone stretches 63 miles along Lake Michigan and encompasses the state’s coastal watershed, as well as some inland waterways and adjacent land that would have historically drained to Lake Michigan. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) approved the Illinois Coastal Management Program (ICMP) on January 31, 2012. MidAmerica is outside the Lake Michigan lakefront area designated under the Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP).

(b) If Yes is the project consistent with the State's CZMP? If applicable, attach the sponsor's consistency certification and the state's concurrence of that certification. Early coordination is recommended. Yes No Explain.

(14) COASTAL BARRIERS

Is the location of the proposed project within the Coastal Barrier Resources System, as delineated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or FEMA coastal barrier maps? Yes No Explain. No costal barriers are located in the vicinity of the proposed project area.

(15) WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS

Would the proposed project affect any portion of the free-flowing characteristics of a Wild and Scenic River or a Study (Candidate) River, or any adjacent areas that are part of such rivers, listed on the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System and the Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI)? Consult the (regional) National Parks Service (NPS), USDOI Forest Service (FS), or other appropriate federal and/or state authority for information. Early consultation is recommended. Yes No Explain. There are no Wild and Scenic Rivers or Study Rivers in or around the proposed project area. There are two (2) creeks that accommodate runoff from the Airport, Crooked Creek and Silver Creek. Silver Creek is a tributary of the Kaskaskia River, a NRI listed river approximately 8 miles south of the Airport.

Short Form Environmental Assessment Page 28 Revision: 2007-10-01 A

(16) FARMLAND

(a) Would the proposed project involve the use of federal financial assistance or conversion of federal government land? Yes No Explain. The proposed project would occur on Airport property that is currently being farmed; however, the proposed project area is designated for Airport and General Commercial land uses by the City of Mascoutah. The remaining undeveloped Airport property surrounding the proposed project would continue to be farmed until needed for future development. The proposed project would enable the Airport to achieve a revenue source from rent that would be greater than revenue generated by the current farming operations. The farmland is not considered prime or unique; therefore, the proposed project would not significantly impact farmlands. Construction activities would include excavation, clearing and grading activities associated with the proposed aviation development. The proposed project area is farmed; however, the area is designated for Airport use. The City of Mascoutah’s Comprehensive Plan has the goal to: “promote land development in areas surrounding Scott Air Force Base and MidAmerica St. Louis Airport that protects the interests of the airport and Air Force Base and the economic development needs of the area.”19 The Airport, Scott Air Force Base, St. Clair County, and the surrounding communities of Lebanon, Mascoutah, O’Fallon, and Shiloh follow a coordinated, cooperative approach to ensuring the long-term functional viability of the airfields.20

(b) If Yes, would it convert farmland protected by the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) (prime or unique farmland) to non-agricultural uses? Yes No (c) If Yes, determine the extent of project-related farmland impacts by completing (and submitting to the Natural Resources Conservation Service) the "Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form" (USDA Form AD-1006). Coordinate with the state or local agricultural authorities. Explain your response, and attach the Form AD- 1006, if applicable.

(17) ENERGY SUPPLY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

What effect would the proposed project have on energy or other natural resource consumption? Would demand exceed supply? Explain. Letters from local public utilities and suppliers regarding their abilities to provide energy and resources needed for larger projects may be necessary. Natural gas and electrical power to the Airport is supplied by Ameren. The City of Mascoutah also supplies electrical power, as well as sewer services and municipal potable water to the Airport. Construction activities would temporarily increase energy consumption and would involve the use of readily available consumable resources. Once constructed, the proposed project would use electricity, water, fuel, and other consumable resources, but these requirements would not exceed the capability of existing utility and fuel providers.

19 City of Mascoutah, Comprehensive Plan, https://www.mascoutah.org/planning-and- development/pages/comprehensive-plan (accessed November 23, 2020). 20 Woolpert, Inc., St. Clair County Comprehensive Plan, September 2011.

Short Form Environmental Assessment Page 29 Revision: 2007-10-01 A

Electricity would be required to power the proposed aviation development, to operate cooling systems, and to provide interior and exterior lighting; natural gas would be required to provide heat to the proposed aviation development. The Tenant would maintain utility lines to the proposed aviation development and would pay for natural gas and electricity, which would be separately metered. The proposed aviation development is not anticipated to require the use of scarce or rare materials for construction. Materials to be used for the proposed aviation development (primarily concrete, asphalt, and steel) are readily available. Construction and operation of the proposed project is not anticipated to have a significant impact on the supply of energy, water, or natural resources. Local energy and natural resource suppliers could meet the projected demands associated with the proposed project. The proposed project area is not known to contain any significant mineral resources of value to the region or residents of the State of Illinois. While excavation would occur as part of the proposed project, there would be no loss of mineral resources. Therefore, no impacts to these resources resulting from the proposed project would be anticipated.

(18) LIGHT EMISSIONS

Would the proposed project have the potential for airport-related lighting impacts on nearby residents? If applicable, provide a map depicting the location of residences in the airport vicinity in relation to the proposed lighting system. Yes No Explain. The proposed project would include up to 8 buildings at the proposed aviation development. Exterior pole-mounted and wall-mounted luminaries would be shielded to minimize light trespass from the proposed project, to reduce development impact on nocturnal environments, and impacts to aircraft operations. Exterior fixtures would be controlled via photocells. Light emissions impacts are anticipated to be localized with no significant project-related impacts to the surrounding environment. The nearest residence to the proposed project area is located approximately 0.6 miles to the northeast; as such, lighting for the proposed project is not anticipated to cause a significant impact.

(19) SOLID WASTE

Would the proposed project generate solid waste? Yes No Construction and land clearing activities would result in a temporary increase in the amount of solid waste sent to area landfills. The volume of solid waste would be minor compared to the total volume of waste generated at the Airport. Construction materials would be recycled to the extent practicable. Additionally, the generation of landfill-bound waste from the proposed construction and land clearing would be temporary, lasting approximately 2 years. The Tenant would provide for handling of all waste, including a complete and proper arrangement for adequate sanitary handling and disposal. The type of waste generated from operation of the proposed project would be typical of an aircraft manufacturing facility and include materials such as steel and aluminum, as well as composites and alloys like titanium, graphite, and fiberglass. Other materials generated would be typical of an industrial facility, such as plastics, wood, and refuse generated by employees. All materials would be disposed of in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations, and recycled to the extent practicable.

Short Form Environmental Assessment Page 30 Revision: 2007-10-01 A

If Yes, are local disposal facilities capable of handling the additional volumes of waste resulting from the project? NOTE: A sanitary landfill is incompatible with airport operations if the landfill is located within 10,000 feet of a runway serving turbo-powered aircraft, or 5,000 feet of a runway serving piston-powered aircraft. Refer to FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200.33A "Hazardous Wildlife Attractants on or Near Airports," and FAA Order 5200.5B, "Guidance Concerning Sanitary Landfills on or Near Airports." Yes No Explain. According to the IEPA Illinois Landfill Disposal Capacity Report, as of January 1, 2019, the four permitted landfills in Region 4, St. Louis Metropolitan East, have a combined capacity of 178 million cubic yards. The nearest landfill to the proposed project area is the North Miriam Landfill, which has a life expectancy of 16 years until capacity is depleted, at existing disposal rates and barring capacity adjustments.21

21 Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, Illinois Landfill Disposal Capacity Report, September 2019, https://www2.illinois.gov/epa/topics/waste-management/landfills/landfill-capacity/Documents/landfill-capacity-report- 2019.pdf (accessed August 5, 2020).

Short Form Environmental Assessment Page 31 Revision: 2007-10-01 A

(20) CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS

Would construction of the proposed project: 1) increase ambient noise levels due to equipment operation; 2) degrade local air quality due to dust, equipment exhausts and burning debris; 3) deteriorate water quality when erosion and pollutant runoff occur; or 4) disrupt off-site and local traffic patterns? Yes No Explain. Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to begin in the second quarter of 2021 and be completed by the end of 2022, with aircraft manufacturing beginning in the second quarter of 2023. Construction of the proposed project would result in 27 acres of new impervious surfaces and activities would include: • Construction of 5 to 8 buildings that would include one main aircraft manufacturing facility (approximately 200,000 SF), one (1) 40,000 SF aircraft hangar, one (1) 30,000 SF paint hangar, one (1) 16,000 SF aircraft shelter, one (1) 10,000 SF general support facility, and other shelter and service buildings each less than 10,000 SF up to a maximum total of 40,000 SF; • Construction of one (1) 3,000 linear-foot ADG IV taxiway with bridge and aircraft turnouts (approximately 200,000 SF); • Construction of 200,000 SF of apron pavement; • Construction and paving of approximately 200,000 SF for vehicular access and parking for up to 500 automobiles; • Construction and paving of approximately 200,000 SF for aircraft apron; • Construction of a 163,000 SF vegetated, dry detention basin; • Construction of 84,000 SF Airport service road pavement; • Site clearing and removal of existing and debris, such as fill, fencing, trees, and brush; • Installation of LED lighting and additional site paving, landscaping, and drainage improvements; and • Installation of boilers, chillers, electrical systems, water service, sanitary and storm sewer connections, utilities, signage, pavement marking, and other associated elements. The proposed buildings would be used for aircraft manufacturing and painting, aircraft storage, and office, maintenance, and support activities. The facilities would be a maximum of 70 feet in height.

Short Form Environmental Assessment Page 32 Revision: 2007-10-01 A

Construction of the proposed taxiway and Airport service road would be performed in accordance with FAA AC 150/5370-2G, Operational Safety on Airports During Construction,22 and AC 150/5370-10H, Standard Specifications for Construction of Airports.23 All temporary construction equipment utilized for the proposed project requiring a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) would be marked and lighted per FAA AC 70/7460-1L with Change 2, Obstruction Marking and Lighting,24 and lowered when not in use. All vehicles used on the Airport should be painted, marked, and lighted with yellow flashing lights in accordance with FAA AC 150/5210-5D, Painting, Marking, and Lighting of Vehicles Used on an Airport.25 The Airport would ensure that adequate construction oversight is maintained throughout all phases of the proposed project. NOISE: Construction of the proposed project would temporarily increase ground-borne vibration and the level of noise at and within the immediate vicinity of the proposed project area. The noise generated by construction activity would not be significantly greater than the noise generally experienced at the Airport. No noise sensitive land uses are located adjacent to the proposed project area. Construction activity would occur on Airport property and any ground-borne vibration or noise impacts would be temporary and intermittent with no significant impacts anticipated. AIR QUALITY: Development of the proposed project would require the short-term use of construction equipment. Table 4 in Attachment C provides a representative list of the type, horsepower, and quantity of construction equipment that is anticipated to be used at various points in time during construction of the proposed project. Construction of the proposed project would take place over approximately 2 years. The level of dispersed air pollutants that would result from the proposed project would be minimal when compared to the level of dispersed air pollutants from all other Airport-related sources. After construction is completed, all equipment would be permanently removed from the site. Materials generated by excavation would be deposited on-airport, as possible. Where possible, existing trees and brush removed as part of the site clearing would be used as mulch for the proposed landscaping at the proposed aviation development. TRAFFIC: The additional temporary increases in traffic volume resulting from construction of the proposed project would be marginal compared to existing levels (refer to Table 3). Construction equipment and materials would be transported via designated haul routes and connecting arterials to minimize impacts to residential and other noise-sensitive receptors. WATER QUALITY: The proposed project would follow all applicable guidelines established by the St. Clair County Soil and Water Conservation District to protect wetlands, lakes, and

22 US Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular 150/5370-2G, Operational Safety on Airports During Construction, December 13, 2017. 23 US Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular 150/5370-10H, Standard Specifications for Construction of Airports, December 21, 2018. 24 US Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular 70/7460-1L with Change 2, Obstruction Marking and Lighting, October 8, 2016. 25 US Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory Circular 150/5210-5D, Painting, Marking, and Lighting of Vehicles Used on an Airport, April 1, 2010.

Short Form Environmental Assessment Page 33 Revision: 2007-10-01 A

rivers from damage caused by point and non-point source pollution, flooding, erosion, and sediment. Erosion control and water pollution BMPs would be incorporated into the construction process to minimize the risks of soil erosion and water pollution. The Airport’s SWPPP emphasizes pollution prevention and utilizes BMPs to reduce pollutant loadings and improve water quality. Project- specific SWPPPs would be developed by the Airport and Tenant for construction of the proposed taxiway and Airport service road, and aviation development, respectively, and submitted to the IEPA. The SWPPPs would indicate surface drainage patterns, the extent of site disturbance, and various soil erosion and sedimentation controls planned to be used on-site. The proposed project would require a general NPDES permit for stormwater discharges from construction activities (ILR10 permit). Construction of the proposed taxiway and Airport service road would be covered under the County’s general NPDES permit for small municipal separate storm sewer systems (ILR40 permit). The Tenant of the proposed aviation development would obtain separate NPDES permits. The SWPPPs would comply with applicable SWPPP and IEPA NPDES (operational and construction) requirements, including NPDES Permit ILR10 for stormwater discharges from construction activities.

(21) OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

(a) Is the proposed project likely to be highly controversial on environmental grounds? Yes No Explain. Development of the proposed project is not likely to be environmentally controversial. The proposed project is consistent with the plans, goals, and policies of the Airport and surrounding jurisdictions; development of the proposed aviation development would be undertaken in close coordination with the Airport. The proposed project is not likely to create a significant impact directly, indirectly, or cumulatively on the human environment.

(b) Is the proposed project likely to be inconsistent with any federal, state or local law or administrative determination relating to the environment? Yes No Explain. Construction of the proposed project would be consistent with the 2010 Approved ALP and Airport Master Plan.

(c) Is the proposed project reasonably consistent with plans, goals, policies, or controls that have been adopted for the area in which the airport is located? Yes No Explain. The proposed project is consistent with existing Airport rules and regulations and Airport planning documents, including the 2010 Approved ALP and Airport Master Plan. The proposed project would also be consistent with the land use designations and goals to support the Airport and associated aviation-related development in the St. Clair County and City of Mascoutah Comprehensive Plans.

Short Form Environmental Assessment Page 34 Revision: 2007-10-01 A

(22) HAZARDOUS SITES/MATERIALS

Would the proposed project require the use of land that may contain hazardous substances or may be contaminated? Describe how such land was evaluated for hazardous substance contamination. Early consultation with appropriate expertise agencies (e.g., US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), EPA-certified state and local governments) is recommended. Yes No Explain. A search of available environmental records was conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc (EDR) on June 24, 2020. The report is designed to assist parties seeking to meet the search requirements of EPA’s Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (40 CFR Part 312), the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments (E 1527-13), the ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments for Forestland or Rural Property (E 2247-16), the ASTM Standard Practice for Limited Environmental Due Diligence: Transaction Screen Process (E 1528-14) or custom requirements developed for the evaluation of environmental risk associated with a parcel of real estate. According to the EDR Report, there are substances utilized on MidAmerica property that must be recorded and registered with the IEPA and/or the US Department of Defense; however, none of these substances pose a risk to the proposed project area. There are no recorded past spills or contamination within the proposed project area. The full EDR Report is provided as in Attachment G. A site visit was conducted on June 29, 2020, which revealed there are no noticeable RECs within the proposed project area. The Environmental Due Diligence Audit (EDDA) of the proposed project area was performed in conformance with the scope and limitations of the ASTM Standard Practice. This EDDA has revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions (REC) as defined by the ASTM, in connection with the proposed project area.

(23) PERMITS

List all required permits for the proposed project. Indicate whether any difficulties are anticipated in obtaining the required permits. NOTE: Even though the airport sponsor has/shall obtain one or more permits from the appropriate federal, state, and/or local agencies for the proposed project, initiation of such project shall NOT be approved until FAA and/or IDOT has issued its environmental determination. Construction would conform to all architectural, fire, safety, zoning, and electrical codes and all federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and ordinances; these include existing zoning regulations, National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) guidance/regulations, local fire code regulations, and all Airport standards, procedures, and regulations. The proposed project would be located on Airport property within the City of Mascoutah; therefore, applicable laws and regulations include all City ordinances and codes. Architectural, civil, mechanical, plumbing, and electrical plans would be shared with the local fire department in compliance with NFPA 30 Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code and NFPA 30A Code for Motor Fuel Dispensing Facilities and Repair Garages. Installation of up to six (6) USTs, each with 50,000 gallon capacity, would be conducted in accordance with 41 IAC Parts 174-177 to address environmental protection. One (1) oil water separator for fuel would be installed for storage of aircraft defueling operations.

Short Form Environmental Assessment Page 35 Revision: 2007-10-01 A

The proposed project would require a Stormwater Management and Erosion Control Permit from the St. Clair County Building and Zoning Department per Stormwater Control Code Chapter 33. The Airport and Tenant would pursue a CWA Section 404 permit from the USACE for the filling of 1,960 linear feet of the East Stream. The final quantity of compensatory mitigation would be determined based on final construction plans and discussions with the USACE, IEPA, and the IDNR/OWR.

(24) ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Would the proposed project impact minority and/or low-income populations? Consider human health, social, economic, and environmental issues in your evaluation. Yes No Explain. Contstruction and operation of the proposed project is not anticipated to adversely impact any minority and/or low-income populations. The proposed project area is located on Airport property in an area where no housing has been developed and no environmental justice communities are located.

(25) CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

When considered together with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development projects on or off the airport, federal or non-federal, would the proposed project produce a cumulative effect on any of the environmental impact categories above? Consider projects that are connected, cumulative, and similar (common timing and geography). If applicable, provide a list of such projects considered. For purposes of this Short Form EA, generally use 3 years for past projects and 5 years for future foreseeable projects. Yes No Explain. Separate from this action, the Airport pursues other on-going capital, infrastructure, maintenance, and safety improvement projects. Past (approved in the last 3 years), present, and reasonably foreseeable projects are described in Table 6. Construction and operation of the proposed aviation development, in combination with other ongoing improvements at BLV, is not anticipated to contribute to cumulative impacts.

Short Form Environmental Assessment Page 36 Revision: 2007-10-01 A

TABLE 6 – PAST, PRESENT, AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE PROJECTS Document Approval Project Title Type Date Categorical Passenger Terminal Parking Lot Rehabilitation and Expansion Feb. 2017 Exclusion Categorical Erection of Monopole Billboard Structure Apr. 2017 Exclusion Categorical Terminal Modifications Phases 2-4 Jul. 2019 Exclusions Cateforical Parking Lot Expansion, Phase 3 Mar. 2020 Exclusion Environmental Qatar Emiri Air Force F-15QA Training Apr. 2020 Assessment Construct Hangar, Extend Airport Entrance Road, Expand Parking, Categorical May 2020 and Extend Utilities Exclusion Categorical Joint Precision Approach & Landing System (JPALS) Installation Oct. 2020 Exclusion Future Aviation Development TBD TBD NOTE: TBD – to be determined SOURCE: Ricondo & Associates, Inc., March 2021.

10. MITIGATION (a) Describe those mitigation measures to be taken to avoid creation of significant impacts to a particular resource as a result of the proposed project, and include a discussion of any impacts that cannot be mitigated, or that cannot be mitigated below the Threshold of Significance (TOS) (See FAA Order 5050.B, Table 7-1). The proposed aviation development would impact approximately 1,900 linear feet of an existing stream (see Item 6 – Water Quality) and approximately 0.66 acres of wetlands (see Item 11). The final quantity of compensatory mitigation would be determined based on final construction plans, permits, and discussions with the USACE, IEPA, and the IDNR/OWR. Compensatory mitigation would be achieved by purchase of stream and wetland credits from the Little Muddy Stream and Wetland Bank. If there are no stream or wetland credits available from this bank, compensatory mitigation would be accomplished using the in- lieu fee program administered by the IDNR/OWR.

Short Form Environmental Assessment Page 37 Revision: 2007-10-01 A

(b) Provide a description of the resources that are in or adjacent to the project area that must be avoided during construction. Note: Mitigation measures should be incorporated into the project's design documents. The proposed project would remove approximately 9.5 acres of trees, shrubs, and other vegetation to accommodate construction of the proposed aviation development and taxiway. The trees would be removed from November 1 through March 31, to the extent possible, when bats are likely to be hibernating. The tree removal area was surveyed November 6, 2021 by a qualified biologist to determine if suitable trees are present to provide bat habitat. Five (5) suitable habitat trees were found within the proposed removal area, they have been clearly marked and shall not be cut between April 1 through October 31. Suitable habitat trees are defined as trees greater than 5 inches diameter breast height (dbh) with exfoliating bark and other features potentially utilized by roosting bats. All non-suitable trees may be cut at any time. If the above recommendations are adopted, the IDNR has determined that impacts to the Indiana and Northern Long-eared bats are unlikely (see Attachment D).

11. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Describe what efforts would be made to involve the public with this proposed project. Discuss the appropriateness of holding public meetings and/or public hearings, making the draft document available for public comment, or the preparation of a public involvement plan, etc. The St. Clair County PBC approved the lease of Airport property for the proposed aviation development during the May 21, 2020 monthly meeting. The PBC approved the contracts for planning and environmental services of the proposed aviation development during its monthly meeting on June 22, 2020. The PBC approved the pre-development agreement for the proposed aviation development during its monthly meeting on December 29, 2020. Agendas and minutes for monthly PBC meetings are available to the public on the St. Clair County website. Under 40 CFR § 1501.4, federal agencies are required to involve environmental agencies, applicants, and the public, to the extent practicable, when preparing EAs. The Draft EA is available for review by the general public, government agencies, and interested parties for a period of 30 days. The Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EA was published online at https://flymidamerica.com/business/media-center/ and in the Belleville News Democrat on April 5, 2021. The NOA serves to notify the public that this EA process will satisfy the public notice and comment requirements of Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands; DOT Order 5660.1A, Preservation of the Nation’s Wetlands; Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management; and DOT Order 5650.2, Floodplain Management and Protection. The NOA was transmitted via email to agencies on April 5, 2021. The NOA described the proposed project and invited federal, state, and local agencies to provide comments. A copy of the NOA and distribution list is provided in Attachment H. Anyone wishing to comment on the Draft EA may do so in writing by mail or email. The Draft EA is available for review online at: https://flymidamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/BLV-Draft-EA-and-Exhibits.pdf https://flymidamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/BLV-Draft-EA-Attachments.pdf Written comments must be submitted by email (preferred) or mail to: Julie Car Ricondo & Associates, Inc. 20 North Clark Street, Suite 1500 Chicago, Illinois 60602 [email protected] All written comments must be received by 5:00 p.m. Central, May 5, 2021.

Short Form Environmental Assessment Page 38 Revision: 2007-10-01 A

All comments related to the Draft EA will be considered by the FAA and the St. Clair County Public Building Commission in preparing the Final EA.

Short Form Environmental Assessment Page 39 Revision: 2007-10-01 A

12. PREPARER CERTIFICATION I certify that the information I have provided above is, to the best of my knowledge, correct.

Preparer Signature Date

Preparer Name (Printed) and Title

Ricondo & Associates, Inc. Preparer Organization/Firm/Affiliation

13. AIRPORT SPONSOR CERTIFICATION I certify that the information I have provided above is, to the best of my knowledge, correct. I also recognize and agree that no construction activity, including but not limited to site preparation, demolition, or land disturbance, shall proceed for the above proposed project(s) until FAA and/or IDOT issues a final environmental decision for the proposed project(s), and until compliance with all other applicable FAA and/or IDOT approval actions (e.g., ALP approval, airspace approval, grant approval) has occurred.

Airport Sponsoring Authority Signature Date

Airport Sponsoring Authority Representative’s Name (Printed) and Title

Airport Sponsoring Authority Name

Short Form Environmental Assessment Page 40 Revision: 2007-10-01 A

14. DECISION / APPROVAL:

(TO BE COMPLETED BY FEDERAL AND/OR STATE OFFICIALS)

FEDERAL ONLY: For projects at airports that do not FEDERAL ONLY involve any State Block Grant environmental oversight. (i.e.

- Primary Airports)

STATE BLOCK GRANT ONLY SBG ONLY: For projects at airports that involve State Block

Grant environmental oversight and do NOT have aspects of the project that require Federal oversight. (i.e. - Land FEDERAL / STATE BLOCK GRANT Acquisition at a Reliever)

FEDERAL / SBG: For projects at airports that involve State Block Grant environmental oversight and DO have aspects of the project that require Federal approvals. (i.e. - new or modified SIAPS at a GA Airport)

Having reviewed the above information, certified by the responsible airport official, the proposed projects of development warrant environmental processing as indicated below. (Check Appropriate Box).

The proposed development action has been found to qualify for a Short Form Environmental Assessment.

The proposed development action exhibits conditions that require the preparation of a detailed Environmental Assessment (EA).

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION This Environmental Assessment becomes a Federal document when evaluated, signed and dated by the Responsible FAA Official: *Action Reviewed/Recommended by:

(Responsible FAA Official Signature) Date

*Approved:

(Approving FAA Official Signature) Date

STATE*The above BLOCK FAA/IDOT GRANT approval (IDOT signifies – Division that theof Aeronautics) proposed development action(s), as described by the information provided in this Short Form EA, initially appears to qualify for the indicated environmental processing *Action action. Reviewed/Recommended This may be subject to change by: after more detailed information is made known to the FAA /IDOT by further analysis, or through additional federal, state, local or public input, etc.

(IDOT Environmental Officer Initials) Date

*Approved:

(IDOT Approving Official Signature) Date

Short Form Environmental Assessment Page 41 Revision: 2007-10-01 A (!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X (!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X (!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

MIDAMERICA ST. LOUIS AIRPORT APRIL 2021 DRAFT

(!X A i r p o r t

B o u l e v a r

R d u n w a y 1 4 L - 3 2 R

S ta te R o u te 4

(!K

Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, LEGEND CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, Mid Am e r ic a St. Louis Air por t P rope r ty Line IGN, and the GIS User Community P ropos e d P r oje c t Ar e a

Runway Safe ty Are a (RSA)

Taxiway Obje c t Fre e Are a (TOFA) Line

Railway (!X Taxiway Labe l Ele m e nts W ithin FAA Re vie w/Appr oval Author ity

P ropos e d Str uc tur e for Air c r aft

P ropos e d Taxiway (Conc r e te )

P ropos e d Apron (Conc re te )

P ropos e d Br id ge

P r opos e d Dr y De te ntion Bas in

Ele m e nts Not W ithin FAA Re vie w/Appr oval Author ity

P r opos e d Suppor t Str uc ture

P ropos e d Se r vic e Road (As phalt)

P ropos e d P ave m e nt (As phalt)

P r opos e d P ave m e nt (Conc re te )

P ropos e d P e d e s tr ian P ave m e nt (Conc re te )

P r opos e d Fe nc e

P r opos e d Stor m wate r Infiltr ation Bas in

P r opos e d Land s c aping

! P r opos e d Se c ur ity Gate Nor folk Southe r n Railway NOTE: FAA – Fe d e r al Aviation Ad m inis tr ation

SOURCES: Es r i, DigitalGlobe , Ge oEye , Ear ths tar Ge ogr aphic s , CNES/Air bus DS, USDA, USGS, Ae r oGRID, IGN, and the GIS Us e r Com m unity, Augus t 2018 (bas e m ap); Cr awfor d , Mur phy & Tilly, Inc ., Mar c h 2021 (pr opos e d ac tion e le m e nts ); Ric ond o & As s oc iate s , Inc ., June 2020 (Air por t pr ope r ty line , RSA, TOFA, r ailway); Ric ond o & As s oc iate s , Inc ., Se pte m be r 2020 (pr opos e d pr oje c t ar e a); Ric ond o & As s oc iate s , Inc ., Nove m be r 2020 (pr opos e d s e c ur ity gate ). EXHIBIT 1 [ NORTH 0 600 ft P ROP OSED P ROJECT ELEMENTS (!X P :\gis \proje c ts \BLV\MXD\BLV_EA_Exh1_P r opos e d P r oje c tEle m e nts _20210401.m xd Aviation De ve lopm e nt Envir onm e ntal As s e s s m e nt

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X (!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X (!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

MIDAMERICA ST. LOUIS AIRPORT APRIL 2021 DRAFT

Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

LEGEND

MidAme rica S t. Lou is Airport Prope rty Line

Propose d Proje ct Are a

Ele me nts With in FAA Re v ie w/Approv a l Au th ority

Propose d S tru ctu re for Aircra ft

Propose d Ta xiwa y (Concre te )

Propose d Apron (Concre te )

Propose d Bridg e

Propose d Dry De te ntion Ba sin

Ele me nts Not With in FAA Re v ie w/Approv a l Au th ority

Propose d S u pport S tru ctu re

Propose d Pa v e me nt (Asph a lt)

Propose d Pa v e me nt (Concre te )

Propose d Pe de stria n Pa v e me nt (Concre te )

Propose d Fe nce

Propose d S tormwa te r Infiltra tion Ba sin

Propose d La ndsca ping

! Propose d S e cu rity Ga te

NOTE: FAA – Fe de ra l Av ia tion Administra tion

S OURCES : Esri, Dig ita lGlob e , Ge oEye , Ea rth sta r Ge og ra ph ics, CNES /Airb u s DS , US DA, US GS , Ae roGRID, IGN, a nd th e GIS Use r Commu nity, Au g u st 2018 (b a se ma p); Cra wford, Mu rph y & Tilly, Inc., Ma rch 2021 (propose d a ction e le me nts); Ricondo & Associa te s, Inc., Ju ne 2020 (Airport prope rty line , RS A, TOFA, ra ilwa y); Ricondo & Associa te s, Inc., S e pte mb e r 2020 (propose d proje ct a re a ); Ricondo & Associa te s, Inc., Nov e mb e r 2020 (propose d se cu rity g a te ). EXHIBIT 2 [ NORTH 0 225 ft PROPOS ED AVIATION DEVELOPMENT

P:\g is\proje cts\BLV\MXD\BLV_EA_Exh 2_Propose dAv ia tionDe v e lopme nt20210401.mxd Av ia tion De v e lopme nt Env ironme nta l Asse ssme nt

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X MIDAMERICA ST. LOUIS AIRPORT APRIL 2021 DRAFT

(!K1 (!K2 §¨¦64

(!G

(!K §¨¦64

(!G A A (! i K3 rp (! o rt B o u le R v u a n r w d a Illin ois Air y 1 K4 4 (! E Nation al Gu ard L (! - 3 2 R E R (! u n w a y 1 4 R - K 3 (! 2 L

Sco tt Air G (! K5 Forc e Bas e (! (!F

S ta te R o u G te (! 4 (!A (!K6

LEGEND

MidAmerica St. Louis Airport Property Line

Railway

Runways

Taxiways (!X Taxiway Symbol Norfolk Southern Railway Alternative 1: Southeast of Terminal (Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 2: West of Runway 14L-32R

Alternative 3: Adjacent to Terminal

Alternative 4: Off Airport

Alternative 5: On Scott Air Force Base

SOURCES: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community, August 2018 (basemap); Crawford, Murphy and Tilly, Inc., August 2020 (alternatives); Ricondo & Associates, Inc., June 2020 (Airport facilities, property line, proposed project area). EXHIBIT 3 [ NORTH 0 1,400 ft ALTERNATIVES

P:\gis\projects\BLV\MXD\BLV_EA_Exh3_Alternatives_20210401.mxd Aviation Development Environmental Assessment MIDAMERICA ST. LOUIS AIRPORT APRIL 2021 DRAFT

M A D I S O N C O U N T Y S T. C L A IR C O U N T Y

S

C

T

L

.

I

50

N £ C ¤

L

T

A

O

Lebanon I

N

R

64

C §¨¦ C

O

O O'Fallon 50 U Fairview Heights ¤£ U

N Service LayeN r Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin,

T

T

Y (c) OpenStreY etMap contributors, and the GIS user community MidAmerica St. Louis Shiloh 161 Airport UV §¨¦64 Scott Air Location Map Force Base St. Louis Lambert International Airport

Belleville MidAmerica St. Louis Airport 177 UV St. Louis ! Mascoutah UV159 ! Belleville

M IS SO URI IL LINO IS UV4

LEGEND

Airport Property

County Boundary

State Boundary

SOURCES: Esri, HERE, Garmin, INCREMENT P, OpenStreetMap Contributors, and the GIS User Community, February 2020 (basemap); US Census Bureau, Geography Division, TIGER/Line Shapefile, 2019 (state, county, roadway); Ricondo & Associates Inc., June 2020 (Airport property). EXHIBIT 4 [ NORTH 0 3 mi AIRPORT LOCATION

P:\gis\projects\BLV\MXD\BLV_EA_Exh4_AirportLocation_20210401.mxd Aviation Development Environmental Assessment MIDAMERICA ST. LOUIS AIRPORT APRIL 2021 DRAFT

(!K1 (!K2 Golf Apron §¨¦64

(!G

Cargo Apron (!K §¨¦64

(!G A A (! i K3 rp (! o rt B o u le R v u a n r w d a Illin ois Air y 1 K4 4 (! E Nation al Gu ard L (! ATCT 660 - Terminal Apron 3 2 R E R (! u n w a y 1 4 R - K 3 (! 2 L

Sco tt Air G (! K5 Forc e Bas e (! (!F

S ta te R o u G te (! 4 (!A (!K6

LEGEND

MidAmerica St. Louis Airport Property Line

Proposed Project Area

Railway Buildings Norfolk Southern Railway Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT)

Runways

Apron

Taxiways (!X Taxiway Symbol

SOURCES: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community, August 2018 (basemap); Ricondo & Associates, Inc., June 2020 (Airport facilities, property line, proposed project area). EXHIBIT 5 [ NORTH 0 1,400 ft AIRPORT LAYOUT

P:\gis\projects\BLV\MXD\BLV_EA_Exh5_AirportLayout_20210401.mxd Aviation Development Environmental Assessment MIDAMERICA ST. LOUIS AIRPORT APRIL 2021 DRAFT

R u n w a y 1 Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, 4 L - 3 GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, 2 R CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

S ta te R o u te 4

L EGEND

MidAm erica St. L o uis Airp o rt Pro p erty L ine

Pro p o sed Pro ject Area

2019 No ise Exp o sure Co nto urs

DNL 65 dB

DNL 70 dB

DNL 75 dB and Greater

NOT ES: No ise exp o sure co nto urs fo r b o th MidAm erica Airp o rt and Sco tt Air Fo rce Base are availab le in Attachm ent A. DNL – Day-Night Average So und L evel dB – Decib el

SOU RCES: Esri, DigitalGlo b e, Geo Eye, Ea rthsta r Geo gra p hic s, CNES/Airb us DS, U SDA, U SGS, Aero GRID, IGN, a nd the GIS U ser Co m m unity, August 2018 (b a sem ap ); Ric o ndo & Asso c ia tes, Inc ., June 2020 (Airp o rt p ro p erty line); Ric o ndo & Asso c ia tes, Inc ., Sep tem b er 2020 (p ro p o sed p ro jec t a rea ); Ric o ndo & Asso c ia tes, Inc ., Dec em b er 2020, using U SAF's NOISEMAP a nd Avia tio n Envrio nm enta l Design T o o l V ersio n 3c (no ise exp o sure c o nto urs). EXHIBIT 6 [ NORT H 0 1,100 ft 2019 NOISE EXPOSU RE CONT OU RS

P:\gis\p ro jects\BL V \MXD\BL V _ EA_ Exh6_ 2019No iseExp o sureCo nto urs_ 20210401.m xd Avia tio n Develo p m ent Enviro nm enta l Assessm ent MIDAMERICA ST. LOUIS AIRPORT APRIL 2021 DRAFT

R u n w a y 1 Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, 4 L - 3 GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, 2 R CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

S ta te R o u te 4

LEGEND

M id Am er ic a St. Louis Air p or t Prop er ty Line

Prop osed Pr ojec t Ar ea

2024 No Ac tion Alter na tive Noise Exp osur e Contour s

DNL 65 d B

DNL 70 d B

DNL 75 d B a nd Grea ter

NOTES: Noise exp osure c ontour s for b oth M id Am eric a Air p or t a nd Sc ott Air For c e Ba se a r e a va ila b le in Atta c hm ent A. DNL – Da y-Night Aver a ge Sound Level d B – Dec ib el

SOU RCES: Esr i, Digita lGlob e, GeoEye, Ea r thsta r Geogr a p hic s, CNES/Air b us DS, U SDA, U SGS, Aer oGRID, IGN, a nd the GIS U ser Com m unity, August 2018 (b a sem a p ); Ric ond o & Assoc ia tes, Inc ., June 2020 (Air p or t p r op er ty line); Ric ond o & Assoc ia tes, Inc ., Sep tem b er 2020 (p r op osed p r ojec t a r ea ); Ric ond o & Assoc ia tes, Inc ., Dec em b er 2020, using U SAF's NOISEM AP a nd Avia tion Envr ionm enta l Design Tool V er sion 3c (noise exp osur e c ontour s). EXHIBIT 7 [ NORTH 0 1,100 ft 2024 NO ACTION ALTERNATIV E NOISE EX POSU RE CONTOU RS

P:\gis\p rojec ts\BLV \M X D\BLV _EA_Exh7_2024NoAc tionAlterna tiveNoiseExp osur eContours_20210401.m xd Avia tion Develop m ent Envir onm enta l Assessm ent MIDAMERICA ST. LOUIS AIRPORT APRIL 2021 DRAFT

R u n w a y 1 Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, 4 L - 3 GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, 2 R CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

S ta te R o u te 4

LEGEND

M id Am er ic a St. Louis Air p or t Prop er ty Line

Prop osed Pr ojec t Ar ea

! Run-up Loc a tion

2024 Pr op osed Projec t Noise Exp osure Contour s

DNL 65 d B ! DNL 70 d B

DNL 75 d B a nd Grea ter

NOTES: Noise exp osure c ontour s for b oth M id Am eric a Air p or t a nd Sc ott Air For c e Ba se a r e a va ila b le in Atta c hm ent A. DNL – Da y-Night Aver a ge Sound Level d B – Dec ib el

SOU RCES: Esr i, Digita lGlob e, GeoEye, Ea r thsta r Geogr a p hic s, CNES/Air b us DS, U SDA, U SGS, Aer oGRID, IGN, a nd the GIS U ser Com m unity, August 2018 (b a sem a p ); Ric ond o & Assoc ia tes, Inc ., June 2020 (Air p or t p r op er ty line); Ric ond o & Assoc ia tes, Inc ., Sep tem b er 2020 (p r op osed p r ojec t a r ea ); Ric ond o & Assoc ia tes, Inc ., Dec em b er 2020, using U SAF's NOISEM AP a nd Avia tion Envr ionm enta l Design Tool V er sion 3c (noise exp osur e c ontour s). EXHIBIT 8 [ NORTH 0 1,100 ft 2024 PROPOSED PROJECT NOISE EX POSU RE CONTOU RS

P:\gis\p rojec ts\BLV \M X D\BLV _EA_Exh8_2024Prop osed Projec tNoiseExp osureContour s_20210401.m xd Avia tion Develop m ent Envir onm enta l Assessm ent MIDAMERICA ST. LOUIS AIRPORT APRIL 2021 DRAFT

R u n w a y Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, 1 4 L - GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, 3 2 R CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

S ta te R o u te 4

LEGEN D

Mid Ame r ica St. Louis Air por t Prope r ty Line

Propos e d Pr oje ct Ar ea

! Run-up Location ! 2024 and 2029 Pr opos ed Pr oject N ois e Expos ur e Contour s

DN L 1.5 d B and Gr eater Incre as e

N OTES: N ois e expos ure contour s for b oth Mid Ame rica Air por t and Scott Air For ce Bas e ar e availab le in Attachme nt A. DN L – Day-N ight Aver age Sound Level d B – Decib el

SOURCES: Es r i, DigitalGlob e , Ge oEye , Ear ths tar Ge ogr aphics , CN ES/Air b us DS, USDA, USGS, Ae r oGRID, IGN , and the GIS Us e r Community, Augus t 2018 (b as e map); Ricond o & As s ociate s , Inc., June 2020 (Air por t pr ope r ty line ); Ricond o & As s ociate s , Inc., Se pte mb e r 2020 (pr opos e d pr oje ct ar e a); Ricond o & As s ociate s , Inc., De ce mb e r 2020, us ing USAF's N OISEMAP and Aviation Envr ionme ntal De s ign Tool V e r s ion 3c (nois e e xpos ur e contour s ). EXHIBIT 9 [ 2024 AN D 2029 PROPOSED PROJECT N ORTH 0 1,100 ft DIFFEREN TIAL N OISE EX POSURE CON TOURS

P:\gis \proje cts \BLV \MX D\BLV _EA_Exh9_2024And 2029Propos e d Proje ctDiffe re ntialN ois e Expos ure Contours _20210401.mxd Aviation De ve lopme nt Envir onme ntal As s e s s me nt MIDAMERICA ST. LOUIS AIRPORT APRIL 2021 DRAFT

R u n w a y 1 Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, 4 L - 3 GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, 2 R CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

S ta te R o u te 4

L EGEND

MidAm erica St. L o uis Airp o rt Pro p erty L ine

Pro p o sed Pro ject Area

2029 No Actio n Alternative No ise Exp o sure Co nto urs

DNL 65 dB

DNL 70 dB

DNL 75 dB and Greater

NOT ES: No ise exp o sure co nto urs fo r b o th MidAm erica Airp o rt and Sco tt Air Fo rce Base are availab le in Attachm ent A. DNL – Day-Night Average So und L evel dB – Decib el

SOU RCES: Esri, DigitalGlo b e, Geo Eye, Ea rthsta r Geo gra p hic s, CNES/Airb us DS, U SDA, U SGS, Aero GRID, IGN, a nd the GIS U ser Co m m unity, August 2018 (b a sem ap ); Ric o ndo & Asso c ia tes, Inc ., June 2020 (Airp o rt p ro p erty line); Ric o ndo & Asso c ia tes, Inc ., Sep tem b er 2020 (p ro p o sed p ro jec t a rea ); Ric o ndo & Asso c ia tes, Inc ., Dec em b er 2020, using U SAF's NOISEMAP a nd Avia tio n Envrio nm enta l Design T o o l V ersio n 3c (no ise exp o sure c o nto urs). EXHIBIT 10 [ NORT H 0 1,100 ft 2029 NO ACT ION ALT ERNAT IV E NOISE EXPOSU RE CONT OU RS

P:\gis\p ro jects\BL V \MXD\BL V _ EA_ Exh10_ 2029No Actio nAlternativeNo iseExp o sureCo nto urs_ 20210401.m xd Avia tio n Develo p m ent Enviro nm enta l Assessm ent MIDAMERICA ST. LOUIS AIRPORT APRIL 2021 DRAFT

R u n w a y 1 Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, 4 L - 3 GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, 2 R CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

S ta te R o u te 4

L EGEND

MidAm erica St. L o uis Airp o rt Pro p erty L ine

Pro p o sed Pro ject Area

! Run-up L o catio n

2029 Pro p o sed Pro ject No ise Exp o sure Co nto urs

DNL 65 dB ! DNL 70 dB

DNL 75 dB and Greater

NOT ES: No ise exp o sure co nto urs fo r b o th MidAm erica Airp o rt and Sco tt Air Fo rce Base are availab le in Attachm ent A. DNL – Day-Night Average So und L evel dB – Decib el

SOU RCES: Esri, DigitalGlo b e, Geo Eye, Ea rthsta r Geo gra p hic s, CNES/Airb us DS, U SDA, U SGS, Aero GRID, IGN, a nd the GIS U ser Co m m unity, August 2018 (b a sem ap ); Ric o ndo & Asso c ia tes, Inc ., June 2020 (Airp o rt p ro p erty line); Ric o ndo & Asso c ia tes, Inc ., Sep tem b er 2020 (p ro p o sed p ro jec t a rea ); Ric o ndo & Asso c ia tes, Inc ., Dec em b er 2020, using U SAF's NOISEMAP a nd Avia tio n Envrio nm enta l Design T o o l V ersio n 3c (no ise exp o sure c o nto urs). EXHIBIT 11 [ NORT H 0 1,100 ft 2029 PROPOSED PROJECT NOISE EXPOSU RE CONT OU RS

P:\gis\p ro jects\BL V \MXD\BL V _ EA_ Exh11_ 2029Pro p o sedPro jectNo iseExp o sureCo nto urs_ 20210401.m xd Avia tio n Develo p m ent Enviro nm enta l Assessm ent (!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X (!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X (!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

MIDAMERICA ST. LOUIS AIRPORT APRIL 2021 DRAFT

(!X A i r p o r t

B o u l e v a r

R d u n w a y Nor thwe st Stre am 1 4 L - 3 2 R

S ta te R o u te 4

K LEGEND (!

Mid Ame r ica St. Louis Air p or t P rop e r ty Line P rop ose d P r oje ct Ar ea Crooke d Cre e k Runway Safety Are a (RSA) We tland 2 Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, Taxiway Ob ject Fre e Are a (TOFA) Line GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, Railway CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, (!X Taxiway Lab el IGN, and the GIS User Community Rive r ine

Wetland We tland 1 100-Y e ar Flood p lain

Eleme nts W ithin FAA Review/Ap p r oval Author ity

P rop ose d Str uctur e for Air cr aft

P rop ose d Taxiway (Concr ete)

Taxiway Should e r

Taxiway Gr ad ing

P rop ose d Ap ron (Concre te )

P rop ose d Br id ge We st Stre am

P r op osed Dr y Detention Basin

Eleme nts Not W ithin FAA Review/Ap p r oval Author ity

P r op osed Sup p or t Str ucture

P rop ose d Ser vice Road (Asp halt)

P rop ose d P aveme nt (Asp halt)

P r op osed P ave ment (Concre te)

P rop ose d P e d estr ian P avement (Concre te ) East Stre am P r op osed Fence

P r op osed Stor mwate r Infiltr ation Basin

P r op osed Land scap ing

! P r op osed Se cur ity Gate Nor folk Southe r n Railway NOTE: FAA – Fed e r al Aviation Ad ministr ation

SOURCES: Esr i, DigitalGlob e , Ge oEye , Ear thstar Ge ogr ap hics, CNES/Air b us DS, USDA, USGS, Ae r oGRID, IGN, and the GIS Use r Community, August 2018 (b ase map ); Cr awfor d , Mur p hy & Tilly, Inc., Mar ch 2021 (p r op ose d action e le me nts); Ricond o & Associate s, Inc., June 2020 (Air p or t p r op e r ty line , RSA, TOFA, r ailway); Ricond o & Associate s, Inc., Se p te mb e r 2020 (p r op ose d p r oje ct ar e a); Ricond o & Associate s, Inc., Nove mb e r 2020 (p r op ose d se cur ity gate ). EXHIBIT 12 [ NORTH 0 600 ft WATER RESOURCES (!X P :\gis\p roje cts\BLV\MXD\BLV_EA_Exh12_Wate rRe source s_20210401.mxd Aviation De ve lop me nt Envir onme ntal Asse ssme nt

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X MIDAMERICA ST. LOUIS AIRPORT APRIL 2021 DRAFT

Nor thwe st Stre am S ta te R o u te 4

(!K

Crooke d Cre e k

We tland 2

LEGEND

Mid Ame r ica St. Louis Air p or t P rop e r ty Line We tland 1 Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, Railway GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, (!X Taxiway Lab el CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, Rive r ine IGN, and the GIS User Community Wetland

100-Y e ar Flood p lain

Taxiway Alter native Alignment 1

P rop ose d Taxiway

P rop ose d Taxiway Should er

P rop ose d Taxiway Grad ing

P rop ose d Br id ge

Eleme nts W ithin FAA Review/Ap p r oval Author ity

P rop ose d Str uctur e for Air cr aft

P rop ose d Ap ron (Concre te ) P r op osed Dr y Detention Basin We st Stre am Eleme nts Not W ithin FAA Review/Ap p r oval Author ity

P r op osed Sup p or t Str ucture East Stre am P rop ose d P aveme nt (Asp halt)

P rop ose d Ser vice Road (Asp halt)

P r op osed P ave ment (Concre te)

P rop ose d P e d estr ian P avement (Concre te )

P r op osed Fence

P r op osed Stor mwate r Infiltr ation Basin

P r op osed Land scap ing

! P r op osed Se cur ity Gate

NOTE: FAA – Fed e r al Aviation Ad ministr ation

SOURCES: Esr i, DigitalGlob e , Ge oEye , Ear thstar Ge ogr ap hics, CNES/Air b us DS, USDA, USGS, Ae r oGRID, IGN, and the GIS Use r Community, August 2018 (b ase map ); Cr awfor d , Mur p hy & Tilly, Inc., Se p te mb e r 2020 (p r op ose d action e le me nts); Cr awfor d , Mur p hy & Tilly, Inc., Mar ch 2021 (alte r native s); Ricond o & Associate s, Inc., June 2020 (Air p or t p r op e r ty line , RSA, TOFA, r ailway); Ricond o & Associate s, Inc., Se p te mb e r 2020 (p r op ose d p r oje ct ar e a); Ricond o & Associate s, Inc., Nove mb e r 2020 (p r op ose d se cur ity gate ). EXHIBIT 13 [ NORTH 0 350 ft TAXIWAY ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENT 1

P :\gis\p roje cts\BLV\MXD\BLV_EA_Exh13_TaxiwayAlte rnative Alignme nt1_20210401.mxd Aviation De ve lop me nt Envir onme ntal Asse ssme nt MIDAMERICA ST. LOUIS AIRPORT APRIL 2021 DRAFT

Nor thwe st Stre am S ta te R o u te 4

(!K

Crooke d Cre e k

We tland 2

LEGEND

Mid Ame r ica St. Louis Air p or t P rop e r ty Line We tland 1 Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, Railway GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, (!X Taxiway Lab el CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, Rive r ine IGN, and the GIS User Community Wetland

100-Y e ar Flood p lain

Taxiway Alter native Alignment 2

P rop ose d Taxiway

P rop ose d Taxiway Should er

P rop ose d Taxiway Grad ing

P rop ose d Br id ge

Eleme nts W ithin FAA Review/Ap p r oval Author ity

P rop ose d Str uctur e for Air cr aft

P rop ose d Ap ron (Concre te ) P r op osed Dr y Detention Basin We st Stre am Eleme nts Not W ithin FAA Review/Ap p r oval Author ity

P r op osed Sup p or t Str ucture East Stre am P rop ose d P aveme nt (Asp halt)

P rop ose d Ser vice Road (Asp halt)

P r op osed P ave ment (Concre te)

P rop ose d P e d estr ian P avement (Concre te )

P r op osed Fence

P r op osed Stor mwate r Infiltr ation Basin

P r op osed Land scap ing

! P r op osed Se cur ity Gate

NOTE: FAA – Fed e r al Aviation Ad ministr ation

SOURCES: Esr i, DigitalGlob e , Ge oEye , Ear thstar Ge ogr ap hics, CNES/Air b us DS, USDA, USGS, Ae r oGRID, IGN, and the GIS Use r Community, August 2018 (b ase map ); Cr awfor d , Mur p hy & Tilly, Inc., Se p te mb e r 2020 (p r op ose d action e le me nts); Cr awfor d , Mur p hy & Tilly, Inc., Mar ch 2021 (alte r native s); Ricond o & Associate s, Inc., June 2020 (Air p or t p r op e r ty line , RSA, TOFA, r ailway); Ricond o & Associate s, Inc., Se p te mb e r 2020 (p r op ose d p r oje ct ar e a); Ricond o & Associate s, Inc., Nove mb e r 2020 (p r op ose d se cur ity gate ). EXHIBIT 14 [ NORTH 0 350 ft TAXIWAY ALTERNATIVE ALIGNMENT 2

P :\gis\p roje cts\BLV\MXD\BLV_EA_Exh14_TaxiwayAlte rnative Alignme nt2_20210401.mxd Aviation De ve lop me nt Envir onme ntal Asse ssme nt (!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X (!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X (!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

MIDAMERICA ST. LOUIS AIRPORT APRIL 2021 DRAFT

(!X A i r p o r t

B o u l e v a r

R d u n w a y 1 4 L - 3 2 R

S ta te R o u te 4

(!K

LEGEND Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, Mid Ame r ica St. Louis Air p or t Prop e r ty Line GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, Prop ose d Pr oje ct Ar ea CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, Runway Safety Are a (RSA) IGN, and the GIS User Community Taxiway O b ject Fre e Are a (TO FA) Line

Railway (!X Taxiway Lab el Tre e Removal Ar ea

(! Suitab le Bat Hab itat Tr ee

Eleme nts Within FAA Review/Ap p r oval Author ity

Prop ose d Str uctur e for Air cr aft

Prop ose d Taxiway (Concr ete) (! (! Prop ose d Ap ron (Concre te ) (! Prop ose d Br id ge (!(!

Pr op osed Dr y Detention Basin

Eleme nts Not Within FAA Review/Ap p r oval Author ity

Pr op osed Sup p or t Str ucture

Prop ose d Ser vice Road (Asp halt)

Prop ose d Paveme nt (Asp halt)

Pr op osed Pave ment (Concre te)

Prop ose d Pe d estr ian Pavement (Concre te )

Pr op osed Fence

Pr op osed Stor mwate r Infiltr ation Basin

Pr op osed Land scap ing

! Pr op osed Se cur ity Gate Nor folk Southe r n Railway NO TE: FAA – Fed e r al Aviation Ad ministr ation

SO URCES: Esr i, DigitalGlob e , Ge oEye , Ear thstar Ge ogr ap hics, CNES/Air b us DS, USDA, USGS, Ae r oGRID, IGN, and the GIS Use r Community, August 2018 (b ase map ); Cr awfor d , Mur p hy & Tilly, Inc., Se p te mb e r 2020 (p r op ose d action e le me nts); Cr awfor d , Mur p hy & Tilly, Inc., Fe b r uar y 2021 (mitigation ar e a, suitab le hab itat b at tr e e ); Ricond o & Associate s, Inc., June 2020 (Air p or t p r op e r ty line , RSA, TO FA, r ailway); Ricond o & Associate s, Inc., Mar ch 2021 (p r op ose d p r oje ct ar e a); Ricond o & Associate s, Inc., Nove mb e r 2020 (p r op ose d se cur ity gate ). EXHIBIT 15 [ NO RTH 0 600 ft PRO PO SED TREE REMO VAL (!X P:\gis\p roje cts\BLV\MX D\BLV_EA_Exh15_Prop ose d Tre e Re moval_20210401.mxd Aviation De ve lop me nt Envir onme ntal Asse ssme nt

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X

(!X