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

T.F. Green Airport Improvement ProgramEnvironmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation5.9.6 Comparison of Alternatives B2 and B4 – Significant ImpactsThis section compares the impacts to Section 4(f) resources that would result from Alternative B2 and B4.Each Alternative would result in direct and indirect impacts to historical and recreational resources, resulting in ause of a property protected under Section 4(f) and a significant impact under NEPA. Table 7-2 of Chapter 7, FinalSection 4(f)/Section 6(f) Evaluation, presents a comparison of the impacts and proposed mitigation Section 4(f)properties for each alternative. Alternatives B2 and B4 would result in physical use of a Section 4(f) recreation area(Winslow Park). The impacted park facilities would be replaced through mitigation. Alternatives B2 and B4 bothwould result in the physical use of one property (Hangar No. 1) and one historic district eligible for listing in theNRHP. Alternative B4 would result in a physical use of one property listed in the NRHP (Rhode Island StateAirport Terminal). Alternative B2 would result in the constructive use of one property listed in the NRHP (RhodeIsland State Airport Terminal) and one property eligible for listing in the NRHP (Hangar No. 2).5.9.7 Avoidance, Minimization, and MitigationChapter 7, Final Section 4(f)/Section 6(f) Evaluation, contains a detailed analysis of alternatives evaluated to avoiduse of Section 4(f) resources and proposed mitigation for impacts that would be unavoidable underAlternatives B2 and B4.5.10 Wetlands and WaterwaysThis section provides an overview of the analysis of the impacts to existing wetlands and waterways andincludes the methodology for determining the potential impacts to these resources. It also describes measurestaken to avoid and minimize wetland impacts incorporated into the design of Alternatives B2 and B4.5.10.1 Regulatory ContextExecutive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, 398 requires federal agencies to “avoid to the extent possible the longtermand short-term adverse impacts associated with the destruction or modification of wetlands and to avoid director indirect support of new construction in wetlands wherever there is a practicable alternative.” The Clean Water Act(CWA; formally, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, 33 USC section 1251, et seq.) maintains andrestores the physical, biological, and chemical integrity of the nation’s waters. The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act(as amended, 16 USC section 661, et seq.) requires federal agencies to consider U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)and state wildlife agency comments on action impacts on wildlife. The United States Army Corps of Engineers(USACE) has jurisdiction over Waters of the United States, which includes waterways and adjacent wetlands,through Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Waters of the United States include “all waters which are used, or wereused in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subjectto the ebb and flow of the tide; all interstate waters, including interstate wetlands; and all other waters such asintrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sand flats, wetlands, sloughs, prairiepotholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, natural ponds, or drainage ditches leading to regulated Waters of the U.S., thedegradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce.” 399Wetlands and waterways are also addressed in accordance with the provisions of the Rhode Island Fresh WaterWetlands Act and Rules and Regulations Governing the Administration and Enforcement of the Fresh Water Wetlands398 Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, 42 Federal Register 26961, May 24, 1977.399 33 CFR Part 328, Definition of Waters of the United States.Chapter 5 - Environmental Consequences 5-190 July 2011\\mawatr\ev\09228.00\reports\FEIS_Final_July_2011\PVD_CH05_Environmental_Cons_JUL_2011.doc