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

T.F. Green Airport Improvement ProgramEnvironmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation7.6 Avoidance AlternativesFor each property that would be incorporated (in whole or in part) into the T.F. Green Airport ImprovementProgram, this section provides an evaluation of location and design alternatives that would avoid the use ofand/or minimize harm to Section 4(f) properties. Section 4(f) defines a “feasible and prudent alternative” as onethat “avoids using Section 4(f) property and does not cause other severe problems of a magnitude thatsubstantially outweighs the importance of protecting the Section 4(f) property.” 512 As stated in FAAOrder 5050.4B, an EIS “must contain all feasible and prudent alternatives meeting the project’s purpose andneed that avoid using the 4(f) resource.” If an alternative is rejected, “an EIS must explain why a rejectedalternative presents unique problems or explain the cost to carry out the action or its resultant communitydisruption is extraordinary.” 513 A detailed analysis of the alternatives reviewed to avoid use of Section 4(f)properties is provided in this section. Overall avoidance alternatives are described at the end of this section.7.6.1 Historical Properties Avoidance AlternativesAlternatives B2 and B4 would use the eligible airport historic district and some of its contributing elements.7.6.1.1 Alternative B2This section describes the avoidance alternatives that were evaluated for each Section 4(f) property impactedunder Alternative B2.Eligible Airport Historic DistrictAlternative B2 would result in a physical use of the eligible airport historic district because of the removal ofHangar No. 1 (a contributing element) and modifications and improvements to runways and taxiways at thenorthern end of the airfield. There are no avoidance alternatives for modifications and improvements torunways and taxiways other than the No-Action Alternative, which is not prudent as it does not meet theproject’s Purpose and Need. Specific avoidance alternatives for contributing elements Hangar No. 1,Hangar No. 2, and the Rhode Island State Airport Terminal are discussed in the following sections.Rhode Island State Airport TerminalAlternative B2 would avoid direct impacts (physical use) to the Rhode Island State Airport Terminal, but wouldhave an indirect impact (constructive use) on the Terminal because of Fully Relocated Airport Road whichimpacts the public view and access to the Rhode Island State Airport Terminal. Thus, the relocation of AirportRoad would result in an adverse effect. Constructive use of the Rhode Island State Airport Terminal isunavoidable because the existing Airport Road would have to be relocated to accommodate the runwayextension at the Runway 23 End. A full relocation of Airport Road between Post Road and Warwick Avenue isnecessary to allow Runway 5-23 to be extended northward across existing Airport Road. The roadwayalignment of Fully Relocated Airport Road was developed to meet highway safety standards and to align withRoute 37 on the West and Warwick Avenue at Squantum Drive on the east.512 As defined in 23 CFR 774.513 Federal Aviation Administration Order 5050.4B, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions, U.S. Department ofTransportation, April 28, 2006, Chapter 10, section 1007, Paragraph e(5), p.10-10.Chapter 7 – Final Section 4(f)/Section 6(f) Evaluation 7-12 July 2011\\Mawatr\ev\09228.00\reports\FEIS_Final_July_2011\PVD_CH07_4(f)_JUL_2011.doc