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

T.F. Green Airport Improvement ProgramEnvironmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) EvaluationUnder Alternative B2, there would be interior modifications to Hangar No. 2 to accommodate the uses of theintegrated cargo facility. These modifications would not alter the exterior appearance of Hangar No. 2 and,upon further consultation with the RISHPO, the FAA has determined that the proposed interior modificationswould not result in an adverse effect to Hangar No. 2.Alternative B2 would result in the physical use of 21 acres of the park that lie within the RPZ, including 3.6acres of the City-owned portion and 17.4 acres of the RIAC-owned portion. The actively used parkland thatwould be directly impacted includes 10.3 acres of the RIAC-owned portion and 3.6 acres of the City-ownedportion resulting in total direct impacts of 13.9 acres. The recreational facilities that would be removed includeall four full-sized softball fields, the clubhouse, most of the soccer field area, and one playground. The twosmaller softball fields, the parking lot adjacent to the two softball fields, the passive recreational area, and oneplayground could remain. Because Alternative B2 would remove most of the recreational facilities at WinslowPark, including the main playing field areas, this alternative would substantially limit the public’s use andenjoyment of Winslow Park. The impacted recreational areas would be replaced under Alternative B2, whichmay reduce the impact below the threshold of significance.Physical uses of Hangar No. 1, Hangar No. 2, the eligible airport historic district, and Winslow Park aredescribed in greater detail in Chapter 7, Final Section 4(f)/Section 6(f) Evaluation.Indirect ImpactsAlternative B2 would result in constructive use of contributing elements of the eligible airport historic district.The relocation of Airport Road would alter the historical context of the eligible airport historic district, and limitthe public’s ability to view and access the district and its contributing elements, including Hangar No. 2 and theRhode Island State Airport Terminal. Constructive uses of Hangar No. 2 and the Rhode Island State AirportTerminal are described and evaluated in greater detail in Chapter 7, Final Section 4(f)/Section 6(f) Evaluation. Allother historical architectural properties are located at least one mile from the Airport and are buffered from anypotential visual impacts.Figures 5-36 shows the location of Section 4(f)-protected historical properties and parks in relation to predictednoise contours for 2015, 2020, and 2025 under Alternative B2. Tables 5-98 and 5-99 summarize predicted daynightsound levels at historical properties and parks and recreational areas within the Study Area to assess thepotential for constructive use of Section 4(f) resources. The Rhode Island State Airport Terminal, Hangar No. 1,Hangar No. 2, and the eligible airport historic district would experience noise levels above DNL 65 dB.However, a quiet setting is not a characteristic that qualifies these resources for inclusion in the NRHP. Thesehistorical properties are all on-Airport and in aviation-related uses. Therefore, Alternative B2 would not resultin a constructive use of historical properties due to noise.As shown on Table 5-99, no recreational areas protected under Section 4(f) would experience a change in noiselevels in 2020 or 2025 that would be incompatible with outdoor recreation use (above DNL 75 dB). Therefore,there would be no constructive use of Section 4(f) recreational areas under Alternative B2 due to noise. UnderAlternative B2, there would be no changes in access to parks and recreational areas that would result inconstructive use.Chapter 5 - Environmental Consequences 5-186 July 2011\\mawatr\ev\09228.00\reports\FEIS_Final_July_2011\PVD_CH05_Environmental_Cons_JUL_2011.doc