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

T.F. Green Airport Improvement ProgramEnvironmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) EvaluationIsland’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy 416 (CWCS), funded by the USFWS. The CWCS prioritizes thespecies of fish and wildlife within the state that are of Greatest Conservation Need.5.12.2 Significance ThresholdWhile there is no specific significance threshold established for non-listed species under the federal EndangeredSpecies Act of 1973 (the ESA), FAA Order 1050.1E requires that the FAA to consider the project’s effects onnon-listed species population dynamics, sustainability, reproduction rates, natural and artificial mortality(aircraft strikes), and the minimum population size needed to maintain the affected population.5.12.2.1 Finding: No Significant Fish, Wildlife and Plants ImpactsThe analysis shows that Alternatives B2 and B4 would not significantly impact biodiversity because thealternatives would not reduce the habitat size below the level sufficient to sustain species commonly found inthe affected area or adversely impact sensitive habitat supporting plant or animal species not commonlyoccurring in the affected area.5.12.3 MethodologyThis analysis includes an assessment of project-related effects on existing habitats utilized by fish, wildlife, andplant species that are uncommon within the Project Area along with species that are commonly found in theaffected areas. The evaluation of impacts to plant and animal species include direct impacts and indirect impacts.5.12.3.1 Direct Impacts MethodologyDirect impacts to biotic communities include both long-term and short-term impacts. Long-term direct effectscan occur either as the loss of an area through development or conversion of a habitat type to a different type.Cutting a forest to construct a paved runway extension or filling a stream channel to construct a service road areexamples of direct impacts involving habitat loss.Direct impacts were evaluated by overlaying the limits of work for Alternatives B2 and B4, and theNo-Action Alternative, on base mapping depicting 2004 Baseline Condition water features and vegetation.Direct impacts were quantified by area and percent of a particular vegetation cover type altered. The knownelement occurrences of state-listed wildlife and plant species were also depicted on base plans to determine ifexisting populations would be directly impacted.5.12.3.2 Indirect Impacts MethodologyIndirect impacts are defined as the consequences of an action’s direct impacts. Indirect impacts are generally notquantifiable and may occur over a longer time or larger area. From the example above, cutting part of a forest(direct impact) could reduce the remaining forested area below the minimum habitat size required to supportsurvival and reproduction of a particular species (indirect impact). Indirect impacts also include reasonablyforeseeable indirect consequences to biotic communities caused by a proposed action that would occur either inthe future or in the vicinity of the direct impacts associated with an action. Generally, indirect impacts areregarded as the results of secondary growth or development induced by the action.416 Rhode Island’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy, Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, Division of Fish and Wildlife.September 2005.Chapter 5 - Environmental Consequences 5-226 July 2011\\mawatr\ev\09228.00\reports\FEIS_Final_July_2011\PVD_CH05_Environmental_Cons_JUL_2011.doc