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

T.F. Green Airport Improvement ProgramEnvironmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation8,300 feet) would not meet the Purpose and Need as fully as Alternative B2 because it would not enhance theefficiency of the New England Regional Airport System as greatly as an alternative with a 8,700-foot runwayextension and RIAC determined it was not practicable to justify the financial investment. Therefore, FAA didnot advance Alternative B3 North further in the alternatives screening process.3.7.2 Level 5 Screening Step 2 - Modifications to Alternatives B1 and B2 PhasingAfter establishing the costs in Step 1 of the Level 4 screening, the FAA and RIAC examined the availability offederal funding and determined that it may not be feasible to implement all safety and efficiency elements of theT.F. Green Airport Improvement Program concurrently by 2012, as previously planned. 119 Further, due to afederal deadline for all commercial airports in the U.S. to enhance RSAs to FAA standards by September 2015,the safety enhancement elements of the T.F. Green Airport Improvement Program were prioritized.Alternatives B1 (Figure 3-5; referred to as IP Option B in Level 4) and B2 were designed to a conceptual level andunderwent detailed environmental consequences evaluation to assess impacts to natural resources, communitydisruption, residential land acquisition, and the impacts to businesses. The Level 5 analysis was based on the DEISforecast prepared in 2004. 120 Alternative B1 would require a higher number of land acquisitions for constructioncompared to Alternative B2; however, both alternatives would require a significant number of residential andcommercial land acquisitions for construction. Alternatives B1 and B2 would impact the Airport Plaza parcel on thecorner of Post Road and Airport Road, which contains approximately 23 community-supporting businesses and theirassociated jobs. In terms of wetland impacts, Alternative B1 would have more wetland impacts at 20.2 acres, comparedto Alternative B2, where the total wetland impacts would be substantially lower at 8.6 acres. 1213.7.3 Level 5 Screening Step 3 - Development of Alternatives B4 and B3 SouthDue to the significant impacts associated with the other alternatives, an additional alternative, Alternative B4,was developed during the Level 5 screening process. It represents a refinement of alternatives that wasidentified to avoid impacts associated with Alternatives B1 and B2. Another Alternative, Alternative B3 South,with a runway extension to 8,300 feet, was also developed and analyzed Step 3 of the Level 5 Screening. Thefollowing section describes the identification and development Alternative B4 and Alternative B3 South andprovides a summary of the alternatives that underwent conceptual 30 percent design and a detailedenvironmental impact analysis in Step 3 of Level 5 (Alternatives B1, B2, and B4).3.7.3.1 Development of Alternative B4In 2008, after a review of impacts to natural resources and community disruption for Alternatives B1 and B2,and in response to stakeholder concerns, in Step 2 of the Level 5 Screening, RIAC initiated a study to determineif another option could be developed that would limit community disruption and environmental impacts. Thisstudy led to the development of Alternative B4 and Alternative B3 South (see Chart 3-2). Alternative B4(Figure 3-6) was developed to:119 As part of the Level 5 Analysis, RIAC and FAA reconsidered the phasing program in light of federal funding availability in 2009. See DEIS Appendix E,Alternatives Analysis, Section E.7.3.1, Development of Alternative B4. FAA and RIAC previously determined that the projects would be constructed by 2012in the Level 4 analysis.120 The Level 6 environmental consequences analysis is based on a 2009 forecast for 2020 that is consistent with the FAA’s 2008 TAF.121 The wetland impacts presented here (Table 3-10) were based on the design of Alternatives B1 and B2 as originally conceived (prior to the development ofAlternative B4). As Alternative B4 was developed, opportunities to minimize impacts to natural resources were identified. These changes were then carriedback into Alternatives B1 and B2 in an effort to minimize the impacts of all alternatives. Therefore, the wetland impacts presented here are higher thanthose presented later in Level 5 Screening Step 4, which reflects the minimization efforts.Chapter 3 – Alternatives Analysis 3-23 July 2011\\mawatr\ev\09228.00\reports\FEIS_Final_July_2011\PVD_CH03_Alternatives_JUL_2011.doc