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

T.F. Green Airport Improvement ProgramEnvironmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation• Minimize impacts to the residential communities and businesses;• Reduce mandatory land acquisition for construction by limiting construction as much as possible to landlocated south of the Runway 5 End already owned by RIAC;• Avoid the need to tunnel Main Avenue by adding fill to the Runway 5 End and constructing an effectiveand efficient realignment of Main Avenue; and• Minimize impacts to natural resources north of the Airport including avoiding impacts to Buckeye Brooksouth and north of the Airport.In addition to environmental and community impacts, the FAA also considered construction and landacquisition program costs. 122 The FAA prepared preliminary cost data for Alternatives B1 and B2 based on the30 percent level design drawings and a preliminary estimate of mitigation costs. The FAA estimated that theprogram’s total cost would be over $500 million. A major cost associated with both alternatives was FullyRelocated Airport Road, which would cost an estimated $50 million. The FAA worked with the USACE andother federal and state agencies to look at other options to lower environmental impacts and lessen communitydisruption. Alternative B4 would extend Runway 5-23 south approximately 1,530 feet for a total of 8,700 feetand remain within RIAC-owned land. Alternative B4 shifts Runway 16-34 north approximately 100 feet toaccommodate the enhanced RSAs and minimize impacts to businesses on the Runway 16 End and limitmandatory acquisition for construction on the Runway 34 End.The Runway 16-34 safety enhancements would require a partial relocation of Airport Road at the intersection ofPost Road and Airport Road. Airport Road would be partially relocated to the north. Alternative B4 wouldrequire Main Avenue to be realigned to the south at the Runway 5 End. EMAS would be used on the Runway 5,16, and 34 Ends. The Integrated Cargo Facility would consist of a split operation in the vicinity of Site 3including the reuse of existing Hangar No. 2, where cargo operations currently are housed, and a new cargobuilding east of the Runway 16 End. Wetland impacts were minimized at the Airfield Maintenance Facilityaccess road.Key elements of Alternative B4 (all the safety projects as well as the extension of Runway 5-23 and associatedwork) could be completed by the end of 2015. This expedited schedule, proposed by RIAC, would only be possiblefor Alternative B4 because it would require substantially fewer parcels for mandatory land acquisition forconstruction than would be required to construct Alternatives B1 and B2. Some of the benefits associated with anaccelerated schedule would be the earlier realization of important safety and operational benefits, earlierresolution of homeowner uncertainty regarding the necessary associated property acquisitions, shortening theoverall timeframe for community disruption and temporary construction impacts, acceleration of enhancementsthat will accommodate West Coast flights, and earlier realization of attendant revenue and local economic benefits.3.7.3.2 Development of Alternative B3 SouthThe FAA developed a second conceptual layout of an alternative with a Runway 5-23 extension to 8,300 feet toexplore an alternate layout with different impacts and costs than Alternative B3 North. This layout is referred to122 If RIAC applies for a Letter of Intent under the AIP, the FAA will require a benefit-cost-analysis according to FAA Order 5100.38C page 186 b.Chapter 3 – Alternatives Analysis 3-24 July 2011\\mawatr\ev\09228.00\reports\FEIS_Final_July_2011\PVD_CH03_Alternatives_JUL_2011.doc