T.F. Green Airport Improvement Program - FEIS Chapters - PVD

T.F. Green Airport Improvement ProgramEnvironmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation3.7.4.3 Construction CostsAlternatives B1, B2, and B4 would cost between $582 million and $475 million to construct with Alternative B1having the highest and Alternative B4 with the lowest construction costs. Factors contributing to the highconstruction cost of Alternative B1 are Fully Relocated Airport Road, the Runway 5-23 extension to 9,350 feet,and extensive land acquisition.3.7.4.4 Summary of Practicability Analysis of Alternative B1Although Alternative B1, with a Runway 5-23 extension to 9,350 feet, most fully meets the Purpose and Need, italso has the greatest impacts to natural resources and the community, and has the highest costs. Mitigation forAlternative B1 adverse environmental impacts would be substantial and likely not possible to mitigate (i.e.,impacts to wetlands).Based on the Level 5 impact analysis of wetlands, Alternative B1 would result in wetland impact more than twoand a half times greater than either Alternative B2 or B4. The selection of Alternative B1 is inconsistent withfederal and state regulations and policies governing federal activities which alter wetlands. It is thereforeunlikely that:• RIDEM would issue a permit for the construction of Alternative B1;• The USACE would identify Alternative B1 as the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative(LEDPA); 130 and• Alternative B1 would be found consistent with Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands.Conceptual mitigation opportunities for Alternative B2 and B4 appear practicable. Developing andimplementing a compensatory wetland mitigation program for Alternative B1, even if possible, would besubstantially more costly and difficult to achieve especially given the impact to higher values of wetlands andstreams. Based on these considerations, Alternative B1 is impracticable and is eliminated from furtherconsideration. Therefore, only Alternatives B2 and B4 were carried forward in the Level 6 analysis.3.7.5 Summary of Level 5 ScreeningIn the Level 5 screening, FAA developed and evaluated three alternatives that were modifications of IP Option B (theonly one of the Level 4 Alternatives that would be practicable to construct). Alternative B1 includes an extension ofRunway 5-23 to 9,350 feet. In addition, the FAA evaluated alternatives with Runway 5-23 extensions to 8,700 feet(Alternatives B2 and B4) and 8,300 feet (Alternatives B3 North and South). Alternative B3 North was eliminated inStep 1 of the Level 5 screening because the FAA determined that an 8,300-foot runway would have substantiallysimilar impacts to Alternative B2, but would not meet the Purpose and Need as fully 131 as an alternative with a longerrunway extension and would not be practicable to build based on an evaluation of runway utility.130 The USACE will identify the LEDPA following submission of the Clean Water Act Section 404 permit application. See Chapter 8, Consultation andCoordination, for LEDPA definition.131 Based on an evaluation of passenger penalties that would be required on the aircraft that could be used to offer non-stop West Coast service with runwayimprovements. Aircraft types that are forecast to provide International/Caribbean service would not have the same scale of passenger penalties anticipatedwith the West Coast service.Chapter 3 – Alternatives Analysis 3-34 July 2011\\mawatr\ev\09228.00\reports\FEIS_Final_July_2011\PVD_CH03_Alternatives_JUL_2011.doc