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

T.F. Green Airport Improvement ProgramEnvironmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation5.1.3 Operations Forecast UpdateAs described in Chapter 3, Alternatives Analysis, the aviation activity forecast for the Airport was updated in 2009to be consistent with the FAA’s 2008 Terminal Area Forecast (TAF). This analysis was documented in the DEIS.Since the DEIS was filed, the No-Action Alternative forecast has again been revised to be consistent with the FAA’sDraft 2010 TAF, in accordance with FAA Order 5050.4B section 504 b, due to declining operations associated withthe national economic downturn. 271 The FEIS forecast is based on the 2010 Draft TAF plus an additional tenpercent for each aircraft operator category (see Section 3.9.2, FEIS Impact Analysis) and is referred to as the 2010FEIS No-Action Forecast. This revised forecast was considered in the FEIS environmental evaluation. The TAF isthe official FAA forecast of aviation activity at commercial service airports. These forecasts are prepared to meetthe budget and planning needs of FAA and provide information for use by state and local authorities, the aviationindustry, and the public. The TAF includes activity projections for air carriers, air taxi and commuters, generalaviation, and military airports in the NPIAS. Refer to Chapter 3, Alternatives Analysis, Section 3.9.2, FEIS ImpactAnalysis, for additional information on the revisions to the forecast.In both the 2009 and 2010 aircraft operations and passengers forecast updates, the forecasted flights associatedwith the runway extension would remain as anticipated in the original forecast. Based on recent market-specifichistorical passenger demand and other factors, it is reasonable to assume that 16 daily non-stop West Coastflights would occur at T.F. Green Airport if an adequate primary runway length were provided (refer toChapter 2, Purpose and Need for further details). Because of the need to revise the No-Action Alternative forecast,the FAA determined it was necessary to revise the analysis of the environmental and socioeconomic resources,specifically the impact categories of Noise, Land Use, Socioeconomic, Environmental Justice, SurfaceTransportation, Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Section 4(f), Hazardous Materials, and Water Quality). At thesame time the FAA determined it was prudent to use the most recent version of the INM to assess projectrelatednoise impacts. The noise model was re-run with fewer forecasted No-Action Alternative annualoperations and the Incremental Build Forecast. The latest version of the EDMS model was used in the air qualityassessment. Tables 5-3 and 5-4 summarize the operations and passenger activity level forecasts that formed thebasis of the FEIS environmental consequences analysis for Alternatives B2 and B4.Under the No-Action Alternative and Alternatives B2 and B4, operations continue to be lower than the BaselineCondition (2004). However, at the same time, the number of passengers are projected to increase under theNo-Action Alternative (in 2020 and 2025 only) and under Alternatives B2 and B4 (in 2015 for Alternative B4, andin 2020, and 2025 for both Alternative B2 and B4). This is because forecast passenger activity levels areanticipated to increase at a higher rate than operations due to more efficient utilization of aircraft by airlines.This greater efficiency would decrease operations while still accommodating greater passenger demandresulting in higher aircraft load factors (greater percentage of seats filled by paying passengers on each flight).271 FAA Order 5050.4B states that forecasts should be within 10 percent of the TAF for the 5-year analytical period and within 15 percent for the 10-year analytical period.Chapter 5 - Environmental Consequences 5-5 July 2011\\mawatr\ev\09228.00\reports\FEIS_Final_July_2011\PVD_CH05_Environmental_Cons_JUL_2011.doc