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

T.F. Green Airport Improvement ProgramEnvironmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluationsafety enhancements. This IP Option would use EMAS on the Runway 34 End. The Integrated Cargo Facility wouldbe constructed west of the Runway 23 End with roadway access from existing Airport Road.During the Level 5 Screening process, the FAA evaluated the utility and preliminary environmental impacts offive alternatives, Alternatives B1, B2, B3 North, B3 South and B4. Ultimately, the FAA eliminatedAlternatives B1, B3 North and B3 South from further study. This section details the process moving from Level 5to a Level 6 screening.3.7.1 Level 5 Screening Step 1 – Runway 5-23 Length ModificationsAlthough identified as the only Level 4 Alternative that would be practicable to construct, IP Option B andspecifically the extension of Runway 5-23, would have the most impact to wetlands north of Airport Road comparedto the other Level 4 Alternatives. Approximately 12 acres of wetlands would be impacted including relocating thechannels of Buckeye Brook and the Spring Green Pond outlet. This alternative and would require acquisition of thehighest number of residential (334 to 339) and commercial (75) parcels when compared to the other alternativesunder consideration. Due to wetland, residential, and commercial impacts as well as concerns raised by RIAC,various coordinating federal, state, and tribal entities and City of Warwick officials, the FAA re-evaluated theextension parameters for Runway 5-23. The development of Runway 5-23 length modifications was conductedwithin the context of four objectives:• Avoid tunneling or major relocation of Main Avenue; 108• Avoid impacts to the Buckeye Brook stream channel north of Airport Road;• Maintain appropriate runway safety area and other runway safety requirements (i.e., object free areas,protection zones) according to FAA standards; and,• Reduce the number of parcels to be acquired.Considering the physical constraints noted above, alternate runway layouts were developed. The determinationof whether each Runway 5-23 length modification could still meet the Purpose and Need is evaluated further inthis section.• Alternative B2 – Extend Runway 5-23 North and South to a total of 8,700 FeetAlternative B2 (Figure 3-6) extended the Runway 23 End as far north as possible without impacting BuckeyeBrook, and identified design modifications at the Runway 5 End that could allow the runway to beextended to the south. It would be possible to raise the grade of the Runway 5 End by six feet. This wouldavoid impacts to Main Avenue, would allow Main Avenue to remain outside of the Runway Object FreeArea, and would still provide sufficient clearance for departing and arriving aircraft. The maximum runwaylength that could be achieved by this modification is 8,700 feet. Runway 5-23 would be extendedapproximately 600 feet north and 930 feet south for a total of 8,700 feet. Fully Relocated Airport Road wasdesigned to remain outside of the Runway 23 End RPZ in compliance with FAA guidance at that time. TheRunway 16-34 safety enhancements, Fully Relocated Airport Road, and the Integrated Cargo Facility wouldbe the same as Alternative B1. EMAS would be used on the Runway 23, 5, and 34 Ends.108 Major relocation would consist of relocating Main Avenue entirely off RIAC-owned property.Chapter 3 – Alternatives Analysis 3-18 July 2011\\mawatr\ev\09228.00\reports\FEIS_Final_July_2011\PVD_CH03_Alternatives_JUL_2011.doc