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

T.F. Green Airport Improvement ProgramEnvironmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) EvaluationAll significant impacts that would occur under Alternative B4 could be mitigated, as described in Section 6.2,Noise, through 6.20, Mitigation Implementation and Monitoring. For comparative purposes, the mitigation measuresconsidered for Alternative B2 are also described in this chapter, in Section 6.21, Alternative B2 Mitigation.Alternative B4 would meet the Purpose and Need for the T.F. Green Airport Improvement Program, providingthe same aviation and community benefits as Alternative B2; however socioeconomic benefits would begin fiveyears earlier under Alternative B4 with the extended Runway 5-23 coming on line in 2015. (The runwayextension would be completed by 2020 under Alternative B2.) Alternative B4 would also have fewer wetlandimpacts than Alternative B2. Alternative B4 would also be more feasible to construct than Alternative B2because it would have the lowest construction costs. Because of the reduced costs, the safety projects and theextension of Runway 5-23 would be phased so that work can be completed by 2015. Refer to Section 3.9.4, ThePreferred Alternative, of Chapter 3, Alternatives Analysis, for specific reasons why Alternative B4 is preferablewhen compared to Alternative B2. No final FAA decision on the selected alternative and associated mitigationwill be made until the issuance of the agency’s Record of Decision (ROD).Mitigation measures considered in this chapter of the FEIS focus on design measures to avoid or reduceimpacts, and measures to replace or restore the functions and values of lost resources for the alternatives.Tables 6-1 and 6-2 summarize Alternatives B2 and B4 mitigation measures.Through additional avoidance and minimization efforts, as well as field work conducted since the filing of theDEIS, the proposed mitigation for wetland and floodplain resources is provided in greater detail than the DEIS.Wetland mitigation-specific consultation with resource agencies occurred between the filing of the DEIS and thefiling of the FEIS. Based on the EPA’s suggestion in its comment letter on the DEIS, FAA formed a WetlandWorking Group, which met periodically since the July 2010 publication of the DEIS. The Wetland Working Groupis comprised of the EPA, USACE, RI Rivers Council, RIDEM, FAA, and RIAC. See Appendix C, Federal, State, City,and Tribal Coordination, for meeting materials and notes from Wetland Working Group Meetings. Additionalagency coordination and public outreach on mitigation is documented in Chapter 8, Consultation and Coordination.In addition to the comment from EPA to develop a Wetland Working Group to further the wetland impactmitigation, the FAA received other comment letters on the DEIS with suggestions for mitigation includingmeasures to reduce construction emissions, expanding the voluntary land acquisition areas, and identifyingWinslow Park relocation sites. The FAA also worked with the Rhode Island Historic Preservation and HeritageCommission to further develop mitigation measures for impacted historical resources and to develop an MOA.The mitigation measures that the FAA developed in conjunction with the agencies and the community aredescribed in this chapter. The FAA considered these comments on the DEIS and incorporated the suggestedmeasures into the proposed potential mitigation measures.Table 6-1 summarizes the proposed mitigation measures that would address significant impacts underAlternatives B2 and B4. Table 6-2 summarizes the proposed mitigation measures required for compliance withother requirements. This chapter demonstrates that sufficient, appropriate mitigation options are available toaddress Project-related impacts.Chapter 6 – Mitigation 6-2 July 2011\\Mawatr\ev\09228.00\reports\FEIS_Final_July_2011\PVD_CH06_Mitigation_JUL_2011.doc