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

T.F. Green Airport Improvement ProgramEnvironmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) EvaluationRhode Island State Airport TerminalConstruction of the split Integrated Cargo Facility would cause direct and indirect impacts to the Rhode IslandState Airport Terminal Building resulting in an adverse effect. Alternative B4 would avoid the Rhode IslandState Terminal building but would take part of the front (landside) lawn of the historical property (resulting in aphysical use due to the loss of landscaping and the historical entry to the terminal building) and would changeits setting. The Rhode Island State Airport Terminal building is currently visible from Airport Road, whichcontributes to its setting (i.e., the view that the public has from Airport Road provides a sense of the landsideapproaches and operations when the terminal was in operation). The public view of the Rhode Island StateAirport Terminal Building from Airport Road would be obstructed by the proposed split Integrated CargoFacility (Figure 7-4).Hangar No. 1Hangar No. 1 impacts are the same as under Alternative B2 and are described in the previous section.Hangar No. 2Alternative B4 would also use the interior of Hangar No. 2 for cargo operations (described in detail in theprevious section for Alternative B2). Upon consultation with the RISHPO, FAA has determined that theproposed interior modifications would not result in an adverse effect to Hangar No. 2. These interiormodifications would likely meet the criteria for a finding of de minimis impact. 510 As Airport Road would not befully relocated under Alternative B4; thus, the public's view of Hangar No. 2 would not be obstructed under thisAlternative.7.5.2 Section 4(f) Impacts to Winslow ParkFigure 7-6 shows the impacts to Winslow Park under the No-Action Alternative and Alternatives B2 and B4 toWinslow Park. The No-Action Alternative and Alternatives B2 and B4 all result in a physical use of WinslowPark. The function of the RPZ is to protect people and property on the ground. This is achieved through airportowner control over RPZs and includes clearing RPZ areas (and maintaining them clear) of incompatible objectsand activities. At a minimum, RPZs should be clear of all facilities which lead to an assembly of people. 511 Underthe No-Action Alternative, the recreational areas within the No-Action RPZ should be removed to enhancesafety. The impacted recreational areas will be removed and replaced under Alternatives B2 and B4. The passiverecreational area with walking trails could remain within the RPZ because this use is not an assembly of people.RIAC has been working in consultation with the City of Warwick regarding relocating the Winslow Parkfacilities.7.5.2.1 No-Action AlternativeThe No-Action Alternative would result in the physical use of 17.4 acres of the recreational area that lie withinthe existing RPZ, including 0.2 acres of the city-owned portion and 17.2 acres of the RIAC-owned portion. Ofthe actively used parkland, 14.0 acres of the RIAC-owned parcel and 0.1 acres of City-owned parcel would becleared. In order to clear the RPZ under the No-Action Alternative, the recreational facilities that would beremoved include one of the smaller softball fields and one full-sized softball field, two playgrounds, and the510 Environmental Desk Reference for Airport Actions, FAA, October 5, 2007.511 FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Airport Design, U.S. Department of Transportation, FAA, September 29, 2006.Chapter 7 – Final Section 4(f)/Section 6(f) Evaluation 7-10 July 2011\\Mawatr\ev\09228.00\reports\FEIS_Final_July_2011\PVD_CH07_4(f)_JUL_2011.doc