T.F. Green Airport Improvement Program Environmental Impact Statement and Final ... · 2013. 9. 26. · T.F. Green Airport Improvement Program . Environmental Impact Statement and

T.F. Green Airport Improvement Program Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation

Under Alternative B2, in 2015, no housing units or people would experience a significant increase in noise levels because there would be no increase in aircraft operations. Under Alternative B2, in 2020, 74 housing units (an estimated 174 people) are projected to experience a significant increase in noise levels (increase of at least DNL 1.5 dB at or above DNL 65 dB). All 74 housing units have already been sound insulated under a previous sound insulation program. In 2025, 49 housing units (an estimated 115 people) are projected to experience a significant increase in noise levels. All 49 housing units have already been sound insulated under a previous sound insulation program. Alternative B2 would not result in significant noise increases at any non-residential noise-sensitive sites.

Under Alternative B4, in 2015, 184 housing units (an estimated 432 people) are projected to experience a significant increase in noise levels (161 housing units have already been sound insulated under a previous sound insulation program). In 2020, 174 housing units (an estimated 409 people) are projected to experience a significant increase in noise levels (151 housing units have already been sound insulated under a previous sound insulation program). In 2025, 108 housing units (an estimate of 254 people) are projected to experience a significant increase in noise levels (87 housing units have already been sound insulated under a previous sound insulation program). In both 2015 and 2020, Alternative B4 would expose two non-residential noise-sensitive properties to a significant increase in noise levels when compared to the No-Action Alternative: Jehovah’s Witnesses of Warwick, Site PW017; and Baha’i Faith, Site PW039 (Figure 5-9). In 2025 under Alternative B4, three non-residential noise-sensitive sites would experience a significant noise increase: Jehovah’s Witnesses of Warwick, Site PW017; Baha’i Faith, Site PW039; and the John Wickes School, Site SCH524. Baha’i Faith and the John Wickes School (SCH524) have been sound insulated as part of a previous sound insulation effort under the Part 150 NCP.

Due to Alternative B4’s expedited implementation schedule, Alternative B4 would result in more residential properties exposed to significant noise impacts in 2015, compared with Alternative B2 (2020). The primary reason for greater number of residential units exposed to significant noise levels under Alternative B4 is because the total number of residential land acquisitions (mandatory and voluntary) would be less than Alternative B2 (140 total residential units compared to 237 units, respectively). Alternative B4 would require fewer mandatory land acquisitions for construction because it does not include the Fully Relocated Airport Road element. Additionally, the Runway 23 End RPZ would not be cleared under Alternative B4 because it would not change. As such, more homes would remain and, therefore, would be exposed to elevated noise levels due to projected airport growth. Refer to Table ES-9 for a summary of the mandatory and voluntary land acquisitions for Alternatives B2 and B4. The analysis also evaluated noise associated with short-term construction activities, cumulative noise impacts (an evaluation of any past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions within the Noise Study Area), and composite noise (the change in noise levels for all noise sources combined). The full noise analysis is presented in Chapter 5, Environmental Consequences.

ES.4.3.2 Additional Noise Impacts Both the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and FAA consider noise-sensitive properties exposed to noise levels of DNL 65 dB or above as incompatible and prescribe various ways to make the land compatible with the airport environment.43,44 Therefore, in accordance with 14 CFR Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning, the noise-sensitive land uses located within the DNL 65 dB and above noise contour were

43 Environmental Criteria and Standards of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, 24 CFR Part 51; 44 Federal Register 40861, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington DC, July 12, 1979.

44 14 CFR Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning.

Executive Summary ES-39 July 2011 \\Mawatr\ev\09228.00\reports\FEIS_Final_July_2011\PVD_00_ExecutiveSummary_JUL_2011.doc


considered. Additional noise metrics were calculated, in addition to DNL, to further describe the noise environment. 45 Also, in accordance with Rhode Island Department of Transportation (RIDOT) requirements, changes in noise levels associated with vehicular traffic were evaluated.

Both Alternatives B2 and B4 would expose residential areas to a noise level of DNL 65 dB or higher. Thus, noise mitigation (land acquisition or sound insulation) is required, consistent with the FAA’s Noise and Land Use Compatibility Program conducted under 14 CFR Part 150. Table ES-4 presents the number of residences and people exposed to sound levels between DNL 65 dB and DNL 69 dB46 contour as a result of Alternatives B2 and B4 that would be eligible for sound insulation, and the number of residences exposed to sound levels DNL 70 dB and above as a result of Alternatives B2 and B4 that would be eligible for participation in a voluntary land acquisition program (a Future Build VLAP).

Table ES-4 Alternatives B2 and B4: Residential Units and Population Exposed to Noise Levels of DNL 65 dB and Above

20153 20204 20255 No- Alternative Alternative No- Alternative Alternative No- Alternative Alternative

Action B2 B45 Action B2 B4 Action B2 B4

Exposed to Noise Levels at or above DNL 70 dB1

Residential Units 0 0 2 0 15 20 3 23 3 Population 0 0 5 0 35 47 7 61 14

Exposed to Noise Levels between DNL 65 dB and DNL 69 dB2

Residential Units 850 853 959 1,052 1,035 1,120 1,411 1,324 1,400 Population 1,998 2,005 2,259 2,472 2,432 2,632 3,316 3,111 3,290 Source: RIGIS: Field verification by VHB, Inc., 2005; City of Warwick Assessor’s Parcel Data. Note: May include homes already sound insulated as part of a previous sound insulation effort under the Part 150 NCP (see Table ES-6). Refer to Table ES-15 for the

net change impacts (Alternatives B2 and B4 compared to the No-Action Alternative). 1 Consistent with Part 150, residents of homes exposed to sound levels above DNL 70 dB would be eligible to participate in a voluntary land acquisition program. 2 Consistent with Part 150, homes exposed to sound levels between DNL 65 dB to DNL 69 dB would be eligible to participate in a voluntary sound insulation

program. Includes residential units and people exposed to noise levels up to DNL 69.9 dB. 3 Based on the FEIS No-Action and Build Alternatives 2015 noise contours. 4 Based on the FEIS No-Action and Build Alternatives 2020 noise contours. 5 Based on the FEIS No-Action and Build Alternatives 2025 noise contours.

Alternative B4 would result in a fewer number of residential units exposed to DNL 65 dB and above in the shorter-term noise impacts (in 2015 and 2020) compared to Alternative B2 because projected increases in noise levels are generally south of the Airport to residential areas previously acquired by RIAC. The primary reason for greater number of residential units exposed noise levels at or above DNL 70 dB under Alternative B4 in the long-term (2025) is because the total number of residential land acquisitions (mandatory and voluntary) would be fewer than Alternative B2 (140 total residential units compared to 237 units, respectively). Alternative B4 would require fewer mandatory land acquisitions for construction because it does not include the Fully Relocated Airport Road

45 While not required by the FAA, these metrics are provided in order to address agency and community concerns/comments received, and provide information that the DNL metric does not, such as the time that a particular location experiences noise above a specified level, the number of aircraft events causing noise above a specified level, and the maximum level at each of the sites.

46 Includes residential units exposed to noise levels up to DNL 69.9 dB.



element. Additionally, the Runway 23 End RPZ would not be cleared under Alternative B4 because it would not change. As such, more homes would remain and, therefore, would be exposed to elevated noise levels due to projected airport growth (in 2025). Refer to Table ES-9 for a summary of the mandatory and voluntary land acquisitions for Alternatives B2 and B4. Based on the vehicular traffic noise analysis, Alternative B2 would expose 50 more housing units in 2020 and 89 more housing units in 2025 compared to Alternative B4 due to an increase in traffic noise. This is due to the alignment of Fully Relocated Airport Road through a residential neighborhood. This new roadway would bisect the residential Spring Green Neighborhood under Alternative B2.

ES.4.3.3 Proposed Mitigation for Noise Impacts All residential units and other non-residential noise-sensitive properties that would be exposed to a significant increase in noise (increase of at least DNL 1.5 dB at or above DNL 65 dB) would be eligible for voluntary participation in a sound insulation program as a result of the T.F. Green Airport Improvement Program. Significant noise impacts were identified after taking into account all land acquisitions. Table ES-5 presents the number of homes and non-residential noise-sensitive sites that would be eligible for sound insulation mitigation for significant noise impacts under Alternatives B2 and B4.

Table ES-5 Alternatives B2 and B4: Summary of Mitigation for Significant Noise Impacts1,2

2015 2020 2025 Alt. B2 Alt. B4 Alt. B2 Alt. B4 Alt. B2 Alt. B4

Project-related Significant Noise Impacts Significantly Impacted Housing Units Eligible for Sound Insulation Mitigation Impacted Non-Residential Noise-Sensitive Sites Eligible for Sound Insulation Mitigation3

n/a

n/a

184

2

74

0

174

2

49

0

108

3

Previously Sound Insulated4

Previously Sound Insulated Housing Units Previously Sound Insulated Non-Residential Noise-Sensitive Sites5

n/a n/a

161 1

74 n/a

151 1

49 n/a

87 2

Project-related Mitigation for Significant Noise Impacts Non-Insulated Significantly Impacted Housing Units n/a 236 07 236 07 216

Non-Insulated Non-Residential Noise-Sensitive Sites n/a 1 0 1 0 1 Source: HMMH, 2011. U.S. Census Data, 2000. Although some 2010 census data was released in March 2011, a sufficient level of census data for the FEIS analysis was

not released prior to the filing of the FEIS. Note: Represents the number of housing units and non-residential noise-sensitive sites affected by significant noise levels during a specific year and are not cumulative. n/a Not Applicable. In 2015, Alternative B2 would not result in significant noise impacts. 1 Significant impacts are noise impacts that occur if analysis shows that the proposed action would cause noise-sensitive areas to experience an increase in noise

of at least DNL 1.5 dB at or above DNL 65 dB noise exposure when compared to the No-Action Alternative for the same timeframe. These residences would be eligible for sound insulation mitigation. May include homes already sound insulated.

2 Excludes people that would be relocated and housing units that would be acquired for construction (mandatory), under a Future Build VLAP, and RPZ clearing. 3 Jehovah’s Witnesses of Warwick (Site PW017) and Baha’i Faith (Site PW039) would experience significant noise impacts in 2015, 2020, and 2025, and John

Wickes School (SCH524) would also experience significant noise impacts in 2025. 4 Of the Project-related significant noise impacted housing units, these units were sound insulated as part of a previous sound insulation effort under the Part 150

NCP. Database of properties provided by RIAC. 5 Baha’i Faith and John Wickes School have already been sound insulated as part of a previous sound insulation effort under the Part 150 NCP. 6 As noted, the numbers presented are not cumulative. For Alternative B4, through 2025, a total of 24 housing units would be newly eligible for Project-related

noise mitigation (sound insulation) due to significant noise impacts (23 units in 2015, one additional unit in 2020, and no additional units in 2025). 7 As noted, the numbers presented are not cumulative. For Alternative B2, through 2025, zero housing units would be newly eligible for Project-related noise

mitigation (sound insulation) due to significant noise impacts. This is because all housing units exposed to significant noise impacts under Alternative B2 have already been sound insulated as part of a previous sound insulation effort under the Part 150 NCP.



RIAC will provide a future sound insulation program for residences exposed to noise levels between DNL 65 dB and 69 dB, in accordance with Part 150 requirements. Table ES-6 shows the number of newly eligible residential units after taking previously sound insulated residences into account. Refer to Section 6.2.4.3, Residential Sound Insulation of Chapter 6, Mitigation, for a description of the sound insulation process. Assuming that FAA funding is made available, RIAC would begin the sound insulation program following the last phase of project-related land acquisition mitigation.

Table ES-6 Alternatives B2 and B4: Residential Units Newly Eligible for Voluntary Participation in a Sound Insulation Program for Noise Mitigation under Part 1501,2,3

Residential Units Exposed to Residential Units Sound Insulated Remaining Residential Units Newly Sound Levels between DNL 65 as part of a Previous Sound Eligible for Voluntary Participation

dB and 69 dB1 Insulation Effort (Part 150 NCP)1 in a Sound Insulation Program1 Analysis Year Alternative B2 Alternative B4 Alternative B2 Alternative B4 Alternative B2 Alternative B4 2015 853 959 856 877 0 823

2020 1,035 1,120 904 963 1312 1573

2025 1,324 1,400 1,025 1,076 2992 3243

Source: RIGIS: Field verification by VHB, Inc., 2005; City of Warwick Assessor’s Parcel Data. Note: Represents the number of housing units and non-residential noise-sensitive sites affected by significant noise levels during a specific year and are not cumulative.

1 Totals include all eligible properties within the DNL 65 dB contour only, excluding acquisitions. 2 As noted, the numbers presented are not cumulative. For Alternative B2, through 2025, a total of 299 housing units would be newly eligible for Project-related

noise mitigation (sound insulation) due to noise impacts (131 units in 2020 and 168 additional units in 2025). 3 As noted, the numbers presented are not cumulative. For Alternative B4, through 2025, a total of 324 housing units would be newly eligible for Project-related

noise mitigation (sound insulation) due to noise impacts (82 units in 2015, 75 additional units in 2020, and 167 additional units in 2025).

No non-residential noise-sensitive sites would be newly exposed to noise levels of DNL 65 dB and above under Alternative B2 in 2015 or 2025. In 2020, one non-residential noise-sensitive site, Baha’i Faith (PW039), would be newly exposed to noise levels of DNL 65 dB and above when compared to the No-Action Alternative under Alternative B2. However, Baha’i Faith was sound insulated as part of a previous sound insulation effort under the Part 150 NCP.

In both 2015 and 2020, Alternative B4 would expose two non-residential noise-sensitive properties to a significant increase in noise levels when compared to the No-Action Alternative: Jehovah’s Witnesses of Warwick, Site PW017; and Baha’i Faith, Site PW039. In 2025 under Alternative B4, three non-residential noise-sensitive sites would experience a significant noise increase: Jehovah’s Witnesses of Warwick, Site PW017; Baha’i Faith, Site PW039; and the John Wickes School, Site SCH524. Baha’i Faith and the John Wickes School (SCH524) have been sound insulated as part of a previous sound insulation effort under the Part 150 NCP. Concurrent with the construction of the runway extension, RIAC will conduct additional acoustical testing of non-residential noise-sensitive properties that would be exposed to a noise level increase of at least DNL 1.5 dB at or above DNL 65 dB. Results of the testing may allow for installation of air conditioning, or other noise related mitigation.

Consistent with Part 150, residents of homes exposed to sound levels at or above DNL 70 dB would be eligible to participate in a voluntary land acquisition program (referred to herein as a Future Build VLAP). All homes acquired for noise mitigation would be compensated in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Act (URA)



relocation process.47 Table ES-7 summarizes the number of homes that would be eligible for participation in a voluntary land acquisition program for noise mitigation for Alternatives B2 and B4.

Table ES-7 Alternatives B2 and B4: Residential Units Eligible for Voluntary Participation in a Land Acquisition Program for Noise Mitigation under Part 1501

Residential Units Newly Eligible for Voluntary Participation in an Acquisition Program

Analysis Year Alternative B2 Alternative B4 20152 n/a 2 20203 36 67 20254 23 6 Total 59 75 Source: RIGIS: Field verification by VHB, Inc., 2005; City of Warwick Assessor’s Parcel Data. n/a Not Applicable. In 2015, Alternative B2 would not result in substantial changes in noise due to the runway safety area enhancements to Runway 16-34. 1 Subject to the provisions of the Part 150 Program. The acquisition and relocation process, including the determination of value of properties to be acquired is

defined through the URA. 2 Based on the FEIS Alternative B4 2015 DNL 70 noise contour. 3 Based on the FEIS Build Alternatives 2020 DNL 70 dB noise contours with neighborhood rounding. For the purposes of this FEIS, the concept of "neighborhood equity," also

referred to as "neighborhood rounding," has been applied where the FAA identified some residential parcels outside the DNL 70 dB noise contour as eligible for federal noise mitigation funding (voluntary participation in a land acquisition program) as part of the FEIS. Property owners are eligible upon issuance of the ROD.

4 Based on the FEIS Build Alternatives 2025 DNL 70 dB noise contours. Actual eligible residential properties would be determined by a future FAA-accepted NEM.

For the purposes of this FEIS, it is assumed for Alternative B2 that residential properties would be acquired between 2020 and 2025 for noise impacts in 2020; however, it is RIAC’s intention to acquire residential parcels as soon as 2012, subject to availability of funding. For the purposes of this FEIS, it is assumed for Alternative B4 that residential properties would be acquired between 2015 and 2020 for noise impacts in 2015, and between 2020 and 2025 for noise impacts in 2020; again, it is RIAC’s intention to acquire residential parcels as soon as 2012, subject to availability of funding. Also, assuming that FAA funding is made available, RIAC would begin the sound insulation program following the last phase of project-related land acquisition mitigation.

The FAA and RIAC closely reviewed the project-related noise contours in order to maintain neighborhood cohesion and limit community disruption due to land acquisition for noise mitigation. The FAA can only fund for noise mitigation (sound insulation or land acquisition) on properties where noise levels caused by a project meet specific federal criteria. If a residential property is located inside the DNL 65 dB noise contour then it is considered an incompatible land use and federal funds can be used for noise mitigation on that property. Most airports mitigate noise between the DNL 65 and 69 dB noise contours by offering sound insulation, and mitigate for noise at or above the DNL 70 dB noise contour by offering to acquire the property and relocate the occupants. FAA Order 5100.38 provides the following guidance to the FAA on how it may consider additional properties eligible for noise mitigation: “...projects within DNL 65 dB may be expanded beyond the DNL 65 dB contour to include a reasonable additional number of otherwise ineligible parcels contiguous to the project area, if necessary to achieve equity in the neighborhood. Neighborhood or street boundary lines may help determine what is reasonable, in addition to numbers of properties.”48 For the purposes of this FEIS, this concept of "neighborhood equity," also referred to as "neighborhood rounding," has been applied. The FAA identified some residential parcels outside

47 Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, 42 USC 4601 et seq. 48 FAA Order 5100.38C, Airport Improvement Program Handbook, U.S. Department of Transportation, Chapter 8, section 810.b, page 137, effective June 28, 2005.


http:process.47


the DNL 70 dB noise contour as eligible for federal noise mitigation funding (voluntary participation in a land acquisition program) as part of the T.F. Green Airport Improvement Program. These parcels include homes where any portion of the lot was included inside the DNL 70 dB noise contour, homes that would have been the few remaining residences on the block (or dead-end street), or homes that would be left isolated or surrounded by non-residential land use.

In accordance with RIDOT criteria for vehicular traffic noise, the feasibility of constructing noise barriers or berms has been examined and consideration will be provided wherever vehicular traffic noise impact is expected to occur as a result of the proposed road changes. Under Alternative B2, noise barriers or berms appear to be feasible (i.e., meet RIDOT’s Cost Effectiveness Index) at six locations along Fully Relocated Airport Road. Under Alternative B4, noise barriers or berms appear to be feasible at six locations along Realigned Main Avenue. Wherever possible the noise barriers or berms would be attractively landscaped and designed to not be an obstruction to air traffic. In addition to the potential construction of noise barriers or berms, consideration would be given to the installation of open graded asphaltic concrete pavement, or other quiet pavement, as part of constructing Fully Relocated Airport Road for Alternative B2, and Partially Relocated Airport Road and Realigned Main Avenue for Alternative B4. This measure has the potential to reduce traffic noise levels by one to two decibels when compared to conventional pavement.

ES.4.4 Compatible Land Use Based on the results of the aircraft noise analysis, the FAA is required to determine significant increases in aircraft noise levels in terms of compatibility with current and future land uses (noise-sensitive land uses, including residential, as defined by the FAA Order 1050.1E, as presented in Table 5-35 of Chapter 5, Environmental Consequences of this FEIS) surrounding the Airport. As discussed in Section ES.4.3, Noise, the significant noise impacts on incompatible land uses were evaluated after accounting for the mandatory and voluntary land acquisition.

ES.4.4.1 Finding: Significant Land Use Impacts As presented previously, the significance threshold for compatible land use impacts is the same as noise: the action is deemed to have a significant land use impact when a Build Alternative, compared to the No-Action Alternative for the same timeframe, would cause noise-sensitive areas to experience a noise increase of at least DNL 1.5 dB at or above DNL 65 dB. Residences on these significantly impacted parcels would be eligible for sound insulation mitigation.

As noted in Table ES-8, under Alternative B2, in 2015, no residential areas are projected to experience a significant increase in noise levels because there would be no increase in aircraft operations. Under Alternative B4, several areas would experience a significant increase in noise levels under all analysis years, including 2015 due to the expedited construction schedule for extended Runway 5-23. In 2015 under Alternative B4, residential land uses (180 parcels totaling approximately 32 acres) would be affected by significant increases in noise when compared to the No-Action Alternative. These residential areas are located immediately adjacent to the Runway 5 and 23 Ends.

Under Alternative B2, 71 parcels totaling approximately 11.5 acres would experience a significant increase in noise levels in 2020 and 48 parcels totaling approximately seven acres in 2025. These parcels are located immediately adjacent to the Runway 5 and 23 Ends (Figures ES-9 and ES-10). Under Alternative B4 in 2020 and 2025, residential land (169 parcels totaling approximately 30 acres, and 108 parcels totaling approximately 18.5 acres, respectively) would be the largest land area affected by significant increases in noise due to Alternative B4 when compared to the No-Action Alternative. These residential areas are located immediately adjacent to the Runway 5 End



(Figure ES-9). Residences exposed to significant noise increases would be eligible for sound insulation. Table ES-8 presents incompatible (residential) land uses affected by significant increases in noise due to Alternatives B2 and B4 when compared to the No-Action Alternative.

Table ES-8 Alternatives B2 and B4: Significant Noise Impacts to Residential Land Uses1

2015 2020 2025

Alternative Parcels Acres Housing

Units Parcels Acres Housing

Units Parcels Acres Housing

Units Alternative B2 n/a n/a n/a 71 11.5 74 48 7.0 49

Alternative B4 180 32.0 184 169 30.0 174 108 18.5 108 Sources: RIGIS; Field verification by VHB, Inc., 2005; City of Warwick Assessor’s Parcel Data. Notes: All land uses fall within the City of Warwick. The total number of residential parcels and acres exposed to a significant increase in noise levels were determined

after first excluding the non-Project-related residential land acquisitions that would be acquired under the Completed and Current Part 150 VLAPs, and Project-related mandatory (for construction) and voluntary (for noise mitigation and RPZ clearing) residential land acquisitions.

n/a Under Alternative B2 there are no changes in aircraft operations, and hence no change in noise contours in 2015 when compared to the No-Action Alternative. 1 An increase of at least DNL 1.5 dB at or above DNL 65 dB is a significant noise impact, per FAA Order 1050.1E.

In both 2020 and 2025, Alternative B2 would expose fewer acres of residential land uses to significant noise impacts than Alternative B4. This is because under Alternative B2, more residential acquisitions are required for construction of Fully Relocated Airport Road north of the Airport and therefore reduce the number of exposed residential parcels; and because under Alternative B4 the extension of Runway 5-23 is to the south of the Airport resulting in increased aircraft operations over a predominantly residential area. As discussed under Section ES.4.3, Noise, all noise-sensitive land uses impacted by a significant increase in noise would be eligible for sound insulation mitigation.

Refer to Section ES.4.3, Noise, for the non-residential noise-sensitive properties that would be exposed to a significant noise increase for Alternatives B2 and B4.

ES.4.4.2 Additional Compatible Land Use Impacts Land acquisition results in a disruption of the current land use patterns. Residential and commercial parcels would be acquired for Alternatives B2 and B4. Land acquisitions (area of land in number of parcels and acreage, and number of housing units and businesses described in Section ES.4.5, Social and Socioeconomic Impacts) were identified for three categories of T.F. Green Airport Improvement Program related acquisition:

Land acquisition for construction (mandatory), as defined by those areas that fall within the limits of disturbance for construction of the T.F. Green Airport Improvement Program;

Land acquisition for project-related noise mitigation for homes exposed to noise levels at or above DNL 70 dB, consistent with Part 150 criteria (with voluntary participation by residents); and

Land acquisition for the newly created RPZ, as recommended by the FAA (with voluntary participation by land owners).



Figures ES-9 and ES-10 show the land acquisitions for each Alternative, including the No-Action Alternative south and north of the Airport, respectively. Table ES-9 summarizes the full land acquisitions by acquisition type for Alternatives B2 and B4.

By 2020, Alternative B2 would result in the highest total amount of land acquisitions (247 parcels) considering all land acquisition types (commercial and residential parcels for mandatory construction, and residential parcels for voluntary noise mitigation and FAA-recommended RPZ clearing) compared to Alternative B4 (105 parcels).

Table ES-9 Alternatives B2 and B4: Summary of Land Acquisitions (Full Parcel) by Acquisition Type (2020)

Construction Noise Mitigation FAA-Recommended RPZ (Mandatory) (Voluntary) Clearing (Voluntary)1 Total

Build Housing Units Housing Units Housing UnitsAlternative Total Parcels Businesses Total Parcels Housing Units Total Parcels Businesses2 Parcels Businesses

67 units 80 residential 237 units134 units B2 126 38 businesses 41 residential3 36 units3 3 commercial 3 businesses2 247 parcels 41 businesses

11 units 5 6

140 units B4 39 4 12 businesses4 77 residential 69 units5 64 residential 60 units6 105 parcels 12 businesses

Source: RIGIS: Field verification by VHB, Inc., 2005; City of Warwick Assessor’s Parcel Data. Note: All acquisitions are within the City of Warwick. 1 For the purposes of this FEIS analysis, for both Alternatives B2 and B4 RPZ-related acquisitions (voluntary participation by property owners) are assumed to be

completed by the time the runway extension is online and operational. The RPZ land acquisition timing is an estimate only, as land acquisition for RPZ clearing is a FAA-recommendation, and is not a required action and, therefore, contingent upon FAA funding availability.

2 For the purposes of this FEIS, it is assumed that there would be 100 percent participation; however, for commercial businesses located within the RPZ, it is possible that owners would choose not to participate in the voluntary acquisition program. Additionally, some businesses benefit economically from proximity to an airport.

3 Derived from the 2020 Alternative B2 DNL 70 dB noise contour with neighborhood rounding. For the purposes of the EIS analysis, it is assumed that residential land acquisitions would be acquired between 2020 and 2025. However, it is RIAC’s intention to acquire residential parcels as soon as 2012, subject to availability of funding.

4 Assumed to be acquired by 2015 due to the expedited construction schedule for Alternative B4. 5 Derived from the 2020 Alternative B4 DNL 70 dB noise contour with neighborhood rounding. Two residential parcels consisting of two housing units would be

impacted by noise in 2015 due to the expedited construction schedule for Alternative B4. For the purposes of the EIS analysis, it is assumed that residential properties would be acquired between 2015 and 2020 for noise impacts beginning in 2015, and between 2020 and 2025 for noise impacts beginning in 2020. However, it is RIAC’s intention to acquire residential parcels as soon as 2012, subject to availability of funding.

6 Under Alternative B4, a newly created RPZ would be located at the Runway 5 End only.

Tables ES-10 and ES-11 present the changes in land use compatibility (residential land uses exposed to noise levels at or above DNL 65 dB) in 2015, 2020, and 2025 for Alternative B2 and Alternative B4 when compared to the No-Action Alternative, respectively.

Under both Alternatives B2 and B4, the amount of incompatible land use increases in 2020 (and 2015 under Alternative B4) and declines in 2025. This is due to the conservative assumption that land acquisitions for noise mitigation would begin the year of the impact and not before (see notes in Table ES-9). However, it is RIAC’s intention to acquire residential parcels as soon as 2012, subject to availability of funding. Refer to Section ES.4.3, Noise, for the non-residential noise-sensitive properties that would be newly exposed to noise levels at or above DNL 65 dB under Alternatives B2 and B4.


Tuscatucket Brook

Callahan

Brook

Gorton Pond

Three

Ponds

Brook

T.F. Green Airport

£¤1

ST113

ST117

Post Rd

Post Rd

AArrnnoollddss NNeecckk DDrr

Post

Rd

Post

Rd

GGee oo

rr ggee

AArr dd

ee nn DD

rr

West Shore Rd

West Shore Rd

Long StLong St

NNaauussaauukkeet t RR

d d

Buttonwoods Ave

Buttonwoods Ave

Main Ave

Main Ave

Fiel

dvie

w Dr

Fiel

dvie

w Dr

Strawberry Field Rd

Strawberry Field Rd

Main Ave

Main Ave

Strawberry Field Rd

Strawberry Field Rd

Donald AveDonald Ave

Kilvert S

tKilv

ert St

CCoorroonnaaddoo RRdd

Jeffe

rson

Blv

dJe

ffers

on B

lvd

Post

Rd

Post

Rd

Airport Connector Rd


IInndduusstt rr iiaall DDrr

TT eerr mm

ii nnaa ll

LL oooopp RRdd

Amtrak

Shore

Line

TW NTW N

TW M

TW M

TW BTW B

TW CTW C

TW V

TW VTW

TTW

T

TW CTW CRun

way 5-2

3Run

way 5-2

3 Runway 16-34

Runway 16-34

TW S/M

Connec

tor

TW S/M

Connec

tor

TW X1

TW X1 TW

X2TW

X2

TW S

TW S

2316

34

5

InterLinkInterLink

!(70

Tuscatucket Brook

Callahan

Brook

Gorton Pond

Three

Ponds

Brook

T.F. Green Airport

£¤1

ST113

ST117

Post Rd

Post Rd


Post

Rd

Post

Rd

GGee oo

rr ggee

AArr dd

ee nn DD

rr

West Shore Rd

West Shore Rd

Long StLong St


d d

Buttonwoods Ave

Buttonwoods Ave

Main Ave

Main Ave

Fiel

dvie

w Dr

Fiel

dvie

w Dr

Strawberry Field Rd

Strawberry Field Rd

Main Ave

Main Ave

Strawberry Field Rd

Strawberry Field Rd


Kilvert S

tKilv

ert St


Jeffe

rson

Blv

dJe

ffers

on B

lvd

Post

Rd

Post

Rd




TT eerr mm

ii nnaa ll

LL oooopp RRdd

Amtrak

Shore

Line

TW NTW N

TW M

TW M

TW BTW B

TW CTW C

TW V

TW VTW

TTW

T

TW CTW CRun

way 5-2

3Run

way 5-2

3 Runway 16-34

Runway 16-34

TW S/M

Connec

tor

TW S/M

Connec

tor

TW X1

TW X1 TW

X2TW

X2

TW S

TW S

2316

34

5

InterLinkInterLink

!(65

!(70

Tuscatucket Brook

Callahan

Brook

Gorton Pond

Three

Ponds

Brook

T.F. Green Airport

£¤1

ST113

ST117

Post Rd

Post Rd


Post

Rd

Post

Rd

GGee oo

rr ggee

AArr dd

ee nn DD

rr

West Shore Rd

West Shore Rd

Long StLong St


d d

Buttonwoods Ave

Buttonwoods Ave

Main Ave

Main Ave

Fiel

dvie

w Dr

Fiel

dvie

w Dr

Strawberry Field Rd

Strawberry Field Rd

Main Ave

Main Ave

Strawberry Field Rd

Strawberry Field Rd


Kilvert S

tKilv

ert St


Jeffe

rson

Blv

dJe

ffers

on B

lvd

Post

Rd

Post

Rd




TT eerr mm

ii nnaa ll

LL oooopp RRdd

Amtrak

Shore

Line

TW NTW N

TW M

TW M

TW BTW B

TW CTW C

TW V

TW VTW

TTW

T

TW CTW CRun

way 5-2

3Run

way 5-2

3 Runway 16-34

Runway 16-34

TW S/M

Connec

tor

TW S/M

Connec

tor

TW X1

TW X1 TW

X2TW

X2

TW S

TW S

2316

34

5

InterLinkInterLink

!(65

!(70

No-Action Alternative - Runway South Alternative B2 - Runway South Alternative B4 - Runway South\\m

awat

r\ev\

0922

8.00

\GIS

\pro

ject

\20_

FEIS

\ES

\FE

IS_F

igES

-10_

EC

_L5_

Pro

perty

Acq_

RW

5.m

xd

i0 600 1,200300 Feet i0 600 1,200300 Feet i0 600 1,200300 Feet

T.F. Green AirportImprovement Program EIS

Figure ES-9FEIS Alternatives: Property Acquisition and Sound Insulation: South**May include homes already sound insulated.

Note: New Deicer Management System to be constructed under the No-Action Alternativeat an on-Airport location to be determined.

LegendNo-Action Airport Property Boundary (2015)Airport BuildingsNo-Action ExistingPavementProposed New PavementProposed Pavementto be Removed

EMAS BedRunway Protection Zone

Sound InsulationVoluntary Sound Insulation for Project-Related Noise Mitigation**

1Includes Wetlands, Forests, Brushland, Recreational Land, and Transitional Areas

Commercial - Products ServicesCommercial / Industrial MixedIndustrialResidentialInstitutionalState

FederalUndeveloped1AgricultureCemeteriesOpen WaterOther TransportationWaste Disposal

Land Uses

Source: Noise Contours (HMMH)

Realigned MainAvenue (2015)

ES-47

Property Acquisition

Alternative B4 2015 DNL 70 dB Contour

Current Part 150 VLAP

No-Action 2015 DNL 70 dB Contour!(dB!(dB

!(dB!(dB

!(dB

No-Action 2020 DNL 70 dB Contour

Build Alternative 2020 DNL 70 dB ContourBuild Alternative 2020 DNL 65 dB Contour

Voluntary Land Acquisition for FAA-Recommended RPZ Clearing

Mandatory Land Acquisition for ConstructionVoluntary Land Acquisition for Project-Related Noise Mitigation*

*Assumes all residential parcels within the FEIS Alternative B2 2020 DNL 70 dB noise contour would be eligible foracquisition under a Future Build Voluntary Land Acquisition Program between 2020 and 2025. Under Alternative B4,residential parcels within the FEIS Alternative B4 2015 DNL 70 dB noise contour and Runway 5 End RPZ area wouldbe eligible for acquisition between FY2012 and 2020 because of the expedited construction schedule.


This Page Intentionally Left Blank


Posnegansett Lake

Sand Pond

Spring Green Pond

Warwick Pond

Bu c keye Brook

Buckeye Brook

T.F. Green Airport

£¤1

ST37

ST117A

£¤1

Fiel

dview

Dr

Fiel

dview

Dr

Strawberry Field Rd

Strawberry Field Rd

Strawberry Field Rd

Strawberry Field Rd


CCoorroonn aaddoo RRdd

Post

Rd

Post

Rd

Airport RdAirport Rd

Jeffe

rson

Blv

d

Jeffe

rson

Blv

d

Chestnut St

Chestnut StN

orwood Ave

Norw

ood Ave

Elm

wood Ave

Elm

wood Ave

Post

Rd

Post

Rd

FFaaiirrffaaxx DDrr

Harrison Ave

Harrison Ave

Narragansett

PkyNarrag

ansett Pky

Land

sdow

ne R

dLa

ndsd

owne

Rd

War

wic

k Av

e

War

wic

k Av

e

Bellevue Ave

Bellevue Ave

SSqquu aannttuumm RR dd

Manor DrManor Dr

West Shore Rd

West Shore Rd

Warw

ick AveW

arwick Ave

LLaakkee SShhoorree DDrr

IInndduussttrriiaall DDrr

CCoo mm

mmeerrccee DDrr

TT eerr mm

ii nnaa ll

LLoooopp RRdd

Amtrak

Shore

Line

Post Ro

ad

TW NTW N

TW M

TW M

TW BTW B

TW CTW C

TW V

TW VTW

TTW

T

TW CTW C

Runway

5-23

Runway

5-23 Runway 16-34

Runway 16-34

TW S/M

Connec

tor

TW S/M

Connec

tor

TW X1

TW X1 TW

X2TW

X2

TW TTW T

TW S

TW S

23

16

34

5

!(70

TW NTW N

TW M

TW M

TW BTW B

TW CTW C

TW V

TW VTW

TTW

T

TW CTW C

Runway

5-23

Runway

5-23 Runway 16-34

Runway 16-34

TW S/M

Connec

tor

TW S/M

Connec

tor

TW X1

TW X1 TW

X2TW

X2

TW S

TW S

23

16

34

Posnegansett Lake

Sand Pond

Spring Green Pond

Warwick Pond

Bu c keye Brook

Buckeye Brook

T.F. Green Airport

£¤1

ST37

ST117A

£¤1

Fiel

dview

Dr

Fiel

dview

Dr

Strawberry Field Rd

Strawberry Field Rd

Strawberry Field Rd

Strawberry Field Rd



Post

Rd

Post

Rd


Jeffe

rson

Blv

d

Jeffe

rson

Blv

d

Chestnut St

Chestnut StN

orwood Ave

Norw

ood Ave

Elm

wood Ave

Elm

wood Ave

Post

Rd

Post

Rd

FFaaiirrffaaxx DDrr

Harrison Ave

Harrison Ave

Narragansett

PkyNarrag

ansett Pky

Land

sdow

ne R

dLa

ndsd

owne

Rd

War

wic

k Av

e

War

wic

k Av

e

Bellevue Ave

Bellevue Ave


Manor DrManor Dr

West Shore Rd

West Shore Rd

Warw

ick AveW

arwick Ave


IInndduussttrriiaall DDrrCC

oo mmmmee

rrccee DDrr

TT eerr mm

ii nnaa ll

LLoooopp RRdd

Amtrak

Shore

Line

Post Ro

ad

!(65

!(70

TW NTW N

TW M

TW M

TW BTW B

TW CTW C

TW V

TW VTW

TTW

T

TW CTW C

Runway

5-23

Runway

5-23 Runway 16-34

Runway 16-34

TW S/M

Connec

tor

TW S/M

Connec

tor

TW X1

TW X1 TW

X2TW

X2

TW S

TW S

23

16

34

Posnegansett Lake

Sand Pond

Spring Green Pond

Warwick Pond

Bu c keye Brook

Buckeye Brook

T.F. Green Airport

£¤1

ST37

ST117A

£¤1

Fiel

dview

Dr

Fiel

dview

Dr

Strawberry Field Rd

Strawberry Field Rd

Strawberry Field Rd

Strawberry Field Rd



Post

Rd

Post

Rd


Jeffe

rson

Blv

d

Jeffe

rson

Blv

d

Chestnut St

Chestnut StN

orwood Ave

Norw

ood Ave

Elm

wood Ave

Elm

wood Ave

Post

Rd

Post

Rd

FFaaiirrffaaxx DDrr

Harrison Ave

Harrison Ave

Narragansett

PkyNarrag

ansett Pky

Land

sdow

ne R

dLa

ndsd

owne

Rd

War

wic

k Av

e

War

wic

k Av

e

Bellevue Ave

Bellevue Ave


Manor DrManor Dr

West Shore Rd

West Shore Rd

Warw

ick AveW

arwick Ave


IInndduussttrriiaall DDrr

CCoo mm

mmeerrccee

DDrr

TTeerr mm

ii nnaa ll

LLoooopp RRdd

Amtrak

Shore

Line

Post Ro

ad

!(65

!(70

No-Action Alternative - Runway North Alternative B2 - Runway North Alternative B4 - Runway North\\m

awat

r\ev\

0922

8.00

\GIS

\pro

ject

\20_

FEIS

\ES

\FE

IS_F

igES

-11_

EC

_L5_

Pro

perty

Acq

_RW

23R

W16

.mxd

i0 600 1,200300 Feet i0 600 1,200300 Feet i0 600 1,200300 Feet

T.F. Green AirportImprovement Program EIS

Figure ES-10FEIS Alternatives: Property Acquisition and Sound Insulation: North

Property Acquisition

**May include homes already sound insulated.

Note: New Deicer Management System to be constructed under the No-Action Alternativeat an on-Airport location to be determined.

LegendNo-Action Airport Property Boundary (2015)Airport BuildingsNo-Action ExistingPavementProposed New PavementProposed Pavementto be Removed

EMAS BedRunway Protection Zone

Alternative B4 2015 DNL 70 dB Contour

Current Part 150 VLAP

No-Action 2015 DNL 70 dB Contour!(dB!(dB

!(dB!(dB

!(dB

No-Action 2020 DNL 70 dB Contour

Build Alternative 2020 DNL 70 dB ContourBuild Alternative 2020 DNL 65 dB Contour

Sound InsulationVoluntary Sound Insulation for Project-Related Noise Mitigation**

Voluntary Land Acquisition for FAA-Recommended RPZ Clearing

Mandatory Land Acquisition for ConstructionVoluntary Land Acquisition for Project-Related Noise Mitigation*Fully RelocatedAirport Road (2020)

Partially RelocatedAirport Road (2015)

1Includes Wetlands, Forests, Brushland, Recreational Land, and Transitional Areas

Commercial - Products ServicesCommercial / Industrial MixedIndustrialResidentialInstitutionalState

FederalUndeveloped1AgricultureCemeteriesOpen WaterOther TransportationWaste Disposal

Land Uses

*Assumes all residential parcels within the FEIS Alternative B2 2020 DNL 70 dB noise contour would be eligible foracquisition under a Future Build Voluntary Land Acquisition Program between 2020 and 2025. Under Alternative B4,residential parcels within the FEIS Alternative B4 2015 DNL 70 dB noise contour and Runway 5 End RPZ area wouldbe eligible for acquisition between FY2012 and 2020 because of the expedited construction schedule. Source: Noise Contours (HMMH)ES-49


This Page Intentionally Left Blank



In accordance with Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs, section 2,49 local and state land use plans were collected and analyzed. The Executive Order requires the FAA to consider any applicable plans of public agencies in the area for which the Airport is located, including comprehensive plans adopted by municipalities. The objective of the review of these plans was to determine if the action proposed in this FEIS is consistent with local, regional, and state plans for development and growth. In general, both Alternatives B2 and B4 are consistent with current and applicable land use plans and/or policies. Refer to Chapter 5, Environmental Consequences, of this FEIS for further details on this assessment.

Table ES-10 Alternative B2: Residential Land Exposed to DNL 65 dB Compared to the No-Action Alternative

20151 2020 2025 Alternative Parcels Acres Parcels Acres Parcels Acres No-Action Alternative 914 148 1,103 187 1,438 256 Alternative B2 913 148 1,128 195 1,359 238 Alternative B2 Change from No-Action Alternative -1 0 +25 +8 -79 -18 Percent Change -0.1 0% +2% +4% -5% -7% Sources: RIGIS; Field verification by VHB, Inc., 2005; City of Warwick Assessor’s Parcel Data. Notes: All land uses fall within the City of Warwick. The residential land uses that would be exposed to DNL 65 dB and above were determined after first excluding the

non-Project-related residential land acquisitions that would be acquired under the Completed and Current Part 150 VLAPs, and Project-related mandatory (for construction) and voluntary residential land acquisitions (for noise mitigation and RPZ clearing).

1 As discussed in Section ES.4.3, Noise, while the runway use and number of operations would not change for Alternative B2 in 2015 compared to the No-Action Alternative, the runway thresholds would change due to the runway safety area enhancements to Runway 16-34 in 2015 and, therefore, result in changes to the shape of the noise contours and the incompatible land uses (residential) affected.

Table ES-11 Alternative B4: Residential Land Exposed to DNL 65 dB Compared to the No-Action Alternative

2015 2020 2025 Alternative Parcels Acres Parcels Acres Parcels Acres No-Action Alternative 914 148 1,103 187 1,438 256 Alternative B4 1,007 175 1,156 205 1,389 244 Alternative B4 Change from No-Action Alternative +93 +27 +53 +18 -49 -12 Percent Change +10% +18% +5% +10% -3% -5% Sources: RIGIS; Field verification by VHB, Inc., 2005; City of Warwick Assessor’s Parcel Data. Notes: All land uses fall within the City of Warwick. The residential land uses that would be exposed to DNL 65 dB and above were determined after first excluding the

non-Project-related residential land acquisitions that would be acquired under the Completed and Current Part 150 VLAPs, and Project-related mandatory (for construction) and voluntary (for noise mitigation and RPZ clearing) residential land acquisitions.

ES.4.4.3 Proposed Mitigation for Compatible Land Use Impacts As discussed in Section ES.4.3.3, Proposed Mitigation for Noise Impacts, mitigation in the form of sound insulation is proposed for compatible land use impacts related to a significant increase in noise to noise-sensitive land uses (residential) as well as non-residential noise-sensitive sites (e.g., schools). Commercial, industrial, and agricultural uses, however, are considered to be compatible with all noise levels and do not require noise level reduction measures.

In accordance with FAA guidelines (specifically Program Guidance Letter 08-2, dated February 1, 2008), RIAC will update the Noise Land Reuse Plan (as EIS projects are implemented or within 18 months of the issuance of the ROD, whichever comes first) for the areas that would be acquired under its Part 150 NCP, or “noise lands.”

49 49 U.S.C. 47106(a) (1), Executive Order 12372, Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs, section 2.



The noise lands are mostly zoned residential, and are generally surrounded by residential neighborhoods and accessed by residential streets. It is assumed that the noise lands would not continue as a residential use since this land use is incompatible with FAA-defined airport-related noise levels, and that it would become airport property. Consistent with FAA guidance, RIAC will first evaluate if noise lands are needed for airport purposes and if not, consideration may be given to non-noise-sensitive land uses, such as commercial or recreational facilities. RIAC will continue to consult with the City of Warwick to develop compatible land uses for those lands deemed not required for airport purposes. At the time of this FEIS, the City of Warwick’s Comprehensive Plan does not include rezoning these residential areas to commercial, retail, or other non-residential uses.

ES.4.5 Social and Socioeconomic Impacts The social and socioeconomic impacts analysis identifies the economic benefits associated with Alternatives B2 and B4 to the City of Warwick and the State of Rhode Island, including gains in jobs, wages, business revenues, and state sales and income taxes. These gains are associated with the additional aircraft operations and passengers that could be accommodated due to an extended Runway 5-23. The impact analysis also identifies social and community impacts associated with land acquisition (residential, including affordable housing units at the request of the City of Warwick, and commercial land uses) for Alternatives B2 and B4. The effects of displaced businesses on employment and direct impacts (losses) to City property tax revenue due to land acquisitions are also presented. Refer to Appendix G.2, Affordable Housing Analysis for the complete assessment of project-related direct impacts on affordable housing within the Study Area and indirect (secondary) impacts on housing affordability.

The FEIS also examines the potential for community (social and economic) impacts related to short-term construction activities and in cumulative impacts within the Study Area and surrounding communities. Refer to Chapter 5, Environmental Consequences, of this FEIS for these assessments.

ES.4.5.1 Finding: No Significant Social and Economic Impacts There are no significant social and socioeconomic impacts under either Alternative B2 or B4 based on the social and socioeconomic impact threshold assessment because:

There would be sufficient replacement housing within the City of Warwick and its surrounding communities.

There would be sufficient commercial space for relocating businesses within the City of Warwick and its surrounding communities for both Alternatives.

There would be no substantial reduction in the Level of Service (LOS) of roads serving the Airport and its surrounding communities.50 Alternative B2 would improve traffic circulation surrounding the Airport, specifically with the proposed Fully Relocated Airport Road and the Airport gateway improvements on Post Road (refer to Section ES.4.7, Surface Transportation). Alternative B4 would not result in a reduction in the LOS of any intersections.

There would be no substantial loss in community tax base. For both Alternatives B2 and B4, the total potential property tax loss (due to mandatory and voluntary land acquisitions) would less than one percent of the total tax base for the City of Warwick ($1,173,997 would be lost annually starting in 2020, or 0.57 percent of the base, under Alternative B2 and $567,521 would be lost annually starting in 2020, or 0.28 percent of the base, under Alternative B4) and, therefore, is not considered significant.

50 The term “level of service” (LOS) is used to denote the different operating conditions that occur under select traffic volume loads. It is a qualitative measure that considers a number of factors including traffic demands, roadway geometry, speed, signal operations, travel delay, and freedom to maneuver. The level of service designation is an index ranging from A to F, with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F representing the worst operating conditions.


http:communities.50


As discussed in Section ES.4.4, Compatible Land Use, both Alternatives B2 and B4 would result in mandatory land acquisition for homes and businesses due to construction as well as residences eligible for voluntary participation in a land acquisition program for noise mitigation and FAA-recommended RPZ area clearing (Table ES-9). Alternative B2 would require a larger number of mandatory residential and business relocations (67 housing units and 41 businesses with 405 jobs) compared to Alternative B4 (11 housing units and 12 businesses with 59 jobs). Per the URA, residents displaced by a federally-funded project must be offered assistance in locating comparable replacement housing and displaced businesses would be eligible for moving cost reimbursement based on the actual reasonable and necessary costs incurred. According to a review of the current real estate market, there is sufficient available comparable housing to meet the relocation housing needs of all displaced residential households identified in Alternative B2 and B4. Additionally, as of 2010, there is some vacancy in existing office and industrial properties within the City of Warwick and there is considerable opportunity for relocating the displaced businesses to vacant or underdeveloped land on Post Road and elsewhere in the City. Refer to Appendix G.4, Conceptual Relocation Plan of this FEIS for further details.

The land acquisitions (mandatory and voluntary) associated with Alternatives B2 and B4 would result in annual losses to the City of Warwick property tax base. Starting in 2015, under Alternative B2, up to $536,075 in commercial and residential property taxes would be lost to the City of Warwick due to the safety enhancements, including Partially Relocated Airport Road (to be completed by the end of 2015). Starting in 2020, an additional $637,922 in annual tax revenue would be lost to the City of Warwick due to the efficiency enhancements, including $198,303 lost due to residential and commercial land acquisitions required for construction of Fully Relocated Airport Road and $439,619 lost due to voluntary land acquisition associated with a Future Build VLAP and newly created RPZ for a total annual loss of $1,17,997 under Alternative B2 starting in 2020. This represents approximately 0.57 percent of the City’s projected local tax revenue base for 2010 ($204,173,300). (Alternative B2 property tax impacts are presented in Table 5-54 of Chapter 5, Environmental Consequences, of this FEIS.)

Starting in 2015, under Alternative B4, up to $371,616 in annual property tax revenue would be lost to the City of Warwick due to mandatory residential and commercial land acquisitions for construction of the safety and efficiency enhancements (based on an expedited construction schedule). This also includes residential properties identified to be eligible for voluntary participation in a land acquisition program for noise mitigation due to noise impacts in 2015 and for the newly created RPZ at the Runway 5 End. Starting in 2020, an additional $195,905 of residential property tax revenue would be lost annually due to voluntary residential acquisitions for noise mitigation for noise impacts in 2020 for a total annual loss of $567,521 under Alternative B4. This represents approximately 0.28 percent of the City’s projected local tax revenue base for 2010 ($204,173,300). (Alternative B4 property tax impacts are presented in Table 5-58 of Chapter 5, Environmental Consequences, of this FEIS.)

ES.4.5.2 Additional Social and Economic Impacts (Aviation- and Construction-Related Activity Benefits) Under either Alternative B2 or B4, the Airport would continue to serve as a substantial economic driver for the State of Rhode Island and the region. This would be accomplished by providing additional economic benefits in the form of new jobs, increased on- and off-Airport spending and business revenues, and increased state tax revenues. Since Alternative B4 includes a Runway 5-23 extension by the end of 2015, this alternative would result in 80 percent greater economic gains between 2015 and the end of 2020 than Alternative B2 because of the expedited construction schedule. (For the purposes of the FEIS, it is assumed that the runway extension would come online in 2015 for Alternative B4 and in 2020 for Alternative B2; therefore, project-related impacts and benefits associated with runway operations were considered for these years.) Specific economic benefits include:



Alternative B4: Potential economic gains between 2015 and the end of 2020 would total $385 million in business revenues in the City of Warwick and $816 million for the State of Rhode Island, and $13 million in state tax revenue (sales and income taxes). Alternative B4 would begin to generate economic gains due to the runway extension in late 2015 compared to Alternative B2 where the runway would come on line by the end of 2020. After 2020, these potential economic gains would continue to result from Alternative B4.

Alternative B2: By the end of 2020, potential economic gains would total $63 million in business revenues in the City of Warwick and $136 million for the State of Rhode Island, and $2 million in state tax revenue (sales and income taxes).

Cumulative gains in sales and income taxes would reach approximately $13.3 million under Alternative B2 (between 2020 and 2025) and more than $22.7 million under Alternative B4 (between 2015 and 2025).

Additionally, the following temporary construction-related economic benefits are expected for Alternatives B2 and B4:

Constructing Alternative B2 would directly generate a total of 803 jobs, $37.7 million in personal income, and nearly $92.1 million in business spending in the City of Warwick during the 2012 to 2020 construction period. When including indirect and induced impacts, the total benefit would be 1,173 jobs, $50.1 million in income, and $134.3 million in additional spending in the City of Warwick, and additional benefits statewide (1,227 jobs, $53.6 million in wages, and $161.5 million in business revenue).

Constructing Alternative B4 would directly generate a total of 872 jobs, $40.9 million in personal income and $90.6 million in business spending in the City of Warwick during the 2012 to 2020 construction period. When including indirect and induced impacts, the total benefit would be 1,335 jobs, $58.3 million in income and $157.8 million in additional spending in the City of Warwick, and additional benefits statewide.

ES.4.5.3 Proposed Mitigation for Social and Socioeconomic Impacts As discussed above, sufficient replacement housing and commercial space exists within the City of Warwick or the immediate surrounding area in order to accommodate all residential and business relocations. All land acquisition would be subject to the URA, which establishes minimum standards for protections and assistance for federally funded projects requiring the acquisition of real estate or displacement of persons from their homes, businesses, or farms. The URA offers protection for property owners through both mandatory and voluntary acquisitions. Chapter 6, Mitigation, of this FEIS provides further details on the relocation process.

ES.4.6 Environmental Justice and Children’s Health and Safety Risks Federal environmental impact analysis standards require review and determination to assess whether a Proposed Project causes a high and adverse environmental impact and, if so, whether this adverse impact falls disproportionately on any low-income or minority populations.

ES.4.6.1 Finding: No Significant Environmental Justice, and Children’s Health and Safety Risk Impacts The significance threshold for impacts to environmental justice populations and children’s health and safety, in accordance with the FAA Order 1050.1E, is when an action would cause disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations. A significant impact may occur when an action would cause disproportionate health and safety risks to children.

Disproportionate impacts to environmental justice populations and children’s health and safety are considered only for resources for which significant adverse impacts were identified. While there would be significant noise and



compatible land use impacts as well as relocation of residences and businesses associated with Alternatives B2 and B4, the effects of these impacts on minority and low-income populations would not be disproportionate, for either minority groups or low-income groups. The Environmental Justice-related impacts, therefore, are not significant.

As documented in the impact analyses for air quality and water quality (Section ES.4.8 and Section ES.4.12, respectively), Alternatives B2 and B4 would not result in significant impacts to air quality, drinking water, recreational waters, or other products or substances that a child might come into contact with or ingest. Therefore, the T.F. Green Airport Improvement Program would not result in disproportionate health or safety risks to children. Impacts in this category are, therefore, not significant.

ES.4.7 Surface Transportation The roadway network in a community is a critical aspect of community mobility and neighborhood cohesion. As discussed under Section ES.4.5, Social and Socioeconomic Impacts, a significant surface transportation impact would be a disruption in local traffic patterns that would substantially reduce the LOS of roads serving the airport and surrounding communities. In addition to the LOS analysis conducted to identify significant impacts, the surface transportation impact assessment considered parking, public transportation, and pedestrian and bicycle transportation at the Airport and its surroundings.

ES.4.7.1 Finding: No Significant Surface Transportation Impacts Alternative B2 and Alternative B4 would not result in significant surface transportation impacts since neither would cause a substantial reduction in the LOS of roads serving the Airport and its surrounding communities. The results show that there would be no freeway segment, ramp merge and diverge area, or freeway weave segment capacity constraints on the Airport Connector or Route 37 and that there would be no locations that would degrade to LOS E or LOS F as a result of Alternative B2. Under Alternative B2, there would be no substantial reduction in the LOS of roads serving the Airport and its surrounding communities. Alternative B2 would improve traffic circulation surrounding the Airport, specifically with the Fully Relocated Airport Road and the Airport gateway improvements on Post Road.

For Alternative B4, the results show that there would be no freeway segment or ramp merge and diverge area capacity constraints on the Airport Connector or Route 37 and there would be no locations that would degrade to LOS E or LOS F as a result of Alternative B4. Under Alternative B4, there would be no substantial reduction in the LOS of roads serving the Airport and its surrounding communities. Alternative B4 also would improve traffic circulation surrounding the Airport, specifically with the proposed improvements to Airport Road and Main Avenue, and the Airport gateway improvements on Post Road (U.S. Route 1).

ES.4.7.2 Other Surface Transportation Impacts In addition to the LOS analysis conducted to identify significant impacts, the surface transportation impact assessment considered parking, public transportation, and bicycle transportation at the Airport and its surroundings.

ES.4.7.3 Roadway Impacts Under Alternatives B2 and B4, a number of intersections are expected to see improved levels of service when compared to the No-Action Alternative. Traffic operations under Alternative B2 are expected to improve at six intersections in 2020 and six different intersections in 2025 due in part to shifts in regional traffic from roadways throughout the City of Warwick to Fully Relocated Airport Road. Improvements are also attributed to the optimization of signal timing at a



number of intersections throughout the Study Area. Fully Relocated Airport Road would provide an improved east-west connection through the City, which is critical to traffic circulation both related and unrelated to the Airport. This key improvement would require land acquisition and roadway construction to occur over multiple years (between 2015 and 2020) causing community disruption to the Spring Green Neighborhood during the construction period only.

Under Alternative B4 in 2015, traffic operations would improve at one intersection (Post Road [U.S. Route 1] at Partially Relocated Airport Road and Ann & Hope driveway) when compared with the No-Action Alternative. The relocated intersection would be designed to accommodate all movements at the intersection, including vehicles entering and exiting the relocated Ann & Hope driveway. Under Alternative B4, traffic operations are expected to improve at eight intersections in 2020 and at six intersections in 2025. Improvements are attributed to the optimization of signal timings at a number of intersections throughout the Study Area. Under Alternative B4, four intersections in 2020 and six intersections in 2025, that are projected to operate at LOS E or LOS F conditions under the No-Action Alternative, would remain at capacity under Alternative B4. Alternative B4 does not degrade the level of service at these intersections (therefore, no mitigation is required), but it also does not result in the benefit of regional traffic shifts away from the local roadway system that Alternative B2 offers. Alternative B4 would require realigning Main Avenue to the south between Palace Avenue and Brentwood Avenue. There are no new signals proposed along Realigned Main Avenue and the current functional classification and traffic control would remain the same. While the design speed of Realigned Main Avenue would be reduced by five miles per hour to 40 miles per hour, the posted speed limit would remain at 35 miles per hour.

Both Alternatives B2 and B4 would cause two unsignalized driveways along Post Road (Relocated Delivery Drive and Donald Avenue) to degrade to LOS E or LOS F in 2020 and 2025. The amount of traffic at Post Road at Donald Avenue would be reduced due to the elimination of Aviation Avenue with the new Gateway Entrance and would no longer warrant a signal. To present a conservative assessment of impact, this analysis assumes that the traffic signal would no longer be warranted, however, RIDOT would make the final determination to remove the traffic signal. Relocated Delivery Drive is a new driveway that would service the Airport and would not generate enough traffic to warrant a signal. Both driveways would operate similarly to other existing driveways along Post Road.

ES.4.7.4 Vehicular Parking Impacts Alternatives B2 and B4 would equally increase the vehicular parking supply on the Airport. Both Alternatives B2 and B4 would require acquiring property owned by Airport Valet (at 717 Airport Road) that is currently used for valet parking and holds approximately 180 vehicles. This property would have to be acquired by 2015 to construct the Runway 16 End RSA. Both Alternatives B2 and B4 also include constructing a new 2,000-space long-term commercial parking Garage G on part of the existing long-term parking lot, adjacent to Strawberry Field Road by 2020. The three-story garage would result in a net increase of approximately 1,300 long-term commercial parking spaces, as 700 spaces from the existing Long-Term Parking Lot would be lost to this construction. Employee parking would be consolidated in Long-Term Parking Lot E.

ES.4.7.5 Public Transportation Impacts Both Alternatives B2 and B4 would result in minor changes to some of the RIPTA bus routes in the Study Area. The routes that serve the Airport directly (Routes 14, 20, and 66) would see minor changes in circulation patterns on the Airport. The routes that currently use Post Road to access the Airport (Routes 14 and 20) would use the new Post Road “Gateway Entrance.” Routes 1 and 20, which operate on Post Road north of the Airport, could also see minor changes, such as relocated bus stop locations along that section of Post Road. Route 3,



which operates on Warwick Avenue, would only be affected by Alternative B2. Route 8, which operates on Main Avenue, would only be affected by Alternative B4. In both cases, only the location of bus stops (not the route of travel itself) would be affected. The RIDOT Park-and-Ride lot on the north side of Airport Road at Evergreen Avenue would also be relocated under both Alternatives B2 and B4.

ES.4.7.6 Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation Impacts None of the designated Statewide Bicycle Routes or Neighborhood Bicycle Routes in the Study Area would be directly impacted by Alternatives B2 and B4. Roadway widening along Warwick Avenue under Alternative B2, and the increased traffic demand could impact the designation of the roadway segment as a “Suitable Road” for bicycle travel by RIDOT. Squantum Drive is classified as a “Most Suitable Road” by RIDOT. This designation could be altered due to the proposed alignment of Squantum Drive with Fully Relocated Airport Road under Alternative B2. Alternative B4 would not affect the designated Statewide Bicycle Routes or Neighborhood Bicycle Routes in the Study Area. Appropriate pedestrian and bicycle accommodations would be included in the final design of Fully and Partially Relocated Airport Road, and Realigned Main Avenue, as appropriate.

ES.4.7.7 Proposed Mitigation for Surface Transportation Impacts Based on the traffic analysis findings, there would be no disruption in local traffic patterns that would substantially reduce the LOS of roads serving the Airport and its surrounding communities. Where the traffic analysis revealed intersections with degraded LOS, mitigation measures were included in the design of the proposed roadway improvement, so that the proposed roadways would meet RIDOT requirements. All potential mitigation measures would be coordinated with the appropriate local, state, and federal agencies.

Beyond the improvements already included in the traffic analysis (including design of the new intersection of Post Road and Partially Relocated Airport Road to accommodate all traffic movements adequately, and minor signal timing changes at other Study Area intersections), no additional mitigation measures are proposed or required at signalized intersections for Alternative B2 in 2015 and Alternative B4 in all analysis years. In 2020 and 2025 under Alternative B2, roadway modifications would be required for traffic mitigation at two signalized intersections: Post Road at Coronado Road and Main Avenue at Jefferson Boulevard. Mitigation measures could include, but are not limited to, geometric modifications and/or signal timing and phasing adjustments.

Other proposed mitigation measures that would apply to both Alternatives B2 and B4 include:

Incorporate relocated ‘Park and Ride’ facilities and rerouted RIPTA bus stops into the roadway modifications; and

Provide pedestrian and bicycle accommodations as part of the roadway relocation and realignment projects where practicable.

ES.4.8 Air Quality Air quality is governed by state and federal requirements. The federal Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970, as amended in 1990,51 requires EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), under 40 CFR Part 50, for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment.52 EPA established the NAAQS, or air pollution limits, for six principal pollutants: carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, particulate matter, ozone,

51 The Clean Air Act of 1970, U. S. Congress, Public Law 91-604; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, U.S. Congress, Public Law 101-549. 52 CFR Title 40, Part 50.


http:environment.52


and sulfur dioxide. The CAA established two types of national air quality standards. Primary standards set limits to protect public health, including the health, of “sensitive” populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare, including protection against decreased visibility, damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings.

The NAAQS define outdoor levels of air pollutants that are considered safe for public health, welfare and the environment. The EPA also establishes emission standards for “mobile” sources of air pollution (i.e., aircraft, motor vehicles and off-road vehicles such as airport GSE and construction vehicles).

RIDEM is the primary entity responsible for ensuring that the federal and state air quality regulations and standards are met in Rhode Island.53 RIDEM is also responsible for air quality monitoring throughout the state as well as developing and implementing a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to address non-attainment of the ozone (O3) NAAQS. The review and permitting of stationary sources of air emissions and the regulation of some aspects of mobile source emissions (i.e., motor vehicle inspection and maintenance, fuel oxygen content, etc.) are also under the jurisdiction of RIDEM. In addition, the CAA requires compliance with General Transportation Conformity rules. It is FAA's responsibility to assure that federal airport actions conform to state plans for controlling air pollution, and that future year emissions are analyzed and considered as a part of an EIS.

As part of the air quality analysis, an assessment of NAAQS criteria pollutants was completed based on the number of enplanements projected at the Airport. A General Conformity analysis was performed because the Airport is in a ‘non-attainment area’ for ozone. The Airport is in an area of ‘attainment’ for all other NAAQS criteria pollutants. The results of the air quality assessment for the T.F. Green Airport Improvement Program are compared to various criteria and standards established by federal and state regulations in order to determine if the project-related emissions comply with applicable regulatory requirements.

ES.4.8.1 Finding: No Significant Air Quality Impacts Based on the findings of the air quality analysis, Alternatives B2 and B4 would not have a significant effect on air quality conditions locally, state-wide, or regionally. Neither Alternative B2 nor B4 would result in significant air quality impacts, since neither would exceed one or more of the NAAQS. Based on the NAAQS assessment there would be no new violation of the NAAQS following implementation of either Alternative B2 or B4, and the amount of ozone precursors emitted by Alternatives B2 and B4 are less than the General Conformity Rules de minimis thresholds. In addition, the proposed T.F. Green Airport Improvement Program would not be regionally significant.

The highest predicted concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and particulate matter with 10 and 2.5 microns in aerodynamic diameter (PM10 and PM2.5, respectively) are well within the NAAQS for these pollutants for Alternatives B2 and B4 in 2015, 2020, and 2025. Similarly, there are only small (less than eight percent) differences in the predicted concentrations among Alternatives B2 and B4 and the No-Action Alternative. Concentrations are approximately two percent higher in 2015 under Alternative B4 compared to Alternative B2 and the No-Action Alternative due to the earlier implementation of the runway extension and additional aircraft operations. Concentrations of CO are approximately two percent higher in 2025 under Alternative B4 due to Partially Relocated Airport Road and its proximity to one of the modeled receptors. Generally, there would be only slight differences in pollutant concentrations between Alternatives B2 and B4.

53 The Rhode Island Department of Health (RIDOH) is also involved in the evaluation of air quality conditions in the State as these conditions pertain to protecting public health.


http:Island.53


The CO “Hot-Spot” analysis showed that CO values are all well within the NAAQS for this pollutant in 2015, 2020, and 2025 for Alternatives B2 and B4 as well as for the No-Action Alternative. Predicted CO levels would be approximately two percent higher for Alternative B4 than for Alternative B2 because Alternative B4 is forecasted to result in slightly higher levels of vehicle delay and idling at roadway intersections.

ES.4.8.2 Additional Air Quality Impacts Alternatives B2 and B4 in comparison to the No-Action Alternative show that, for all pollutants, there are minor predicted increases in total hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) emissions from 2015 to 2020 and 2025 due to the forecasted increase in operations over this time period. Differences in total HAPs emissions between Alternatives B2 and B4 are negligible, and HAPs increases are negligible for both Alternatives B2 and B4.

Construction-related emissions associated with Alternatives B2 and B4 are within the de minimis levels and combined totals of construction- and operational-related emissions associated with Alternatives B2 and B4 are within the de minimis levels. Therefore, these emissions automatically are deemed to conform to the SIP and no formal General Conformity Determination is required for construction activities. Under Alternative B4, construction emissions in 2015 are predicted to be less when compared to Alternative B2. However, in 2020, Alternative B4 is estimated to result in greater construction emissions. For Alternative B2, both the North Apron construction and the Runway 16-34 reconstruction would be completed prior to 2016. Neither of these projects would begin prior to 2016 for Alternative B4.

Of growing concern is the impact of proposed projects on climate change. Greenhouse gases (GHG) are those that trap heat in the earth’s atmosphere. Both naturally occurring and anthropogenic (man-made) GHGs include water vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2),

54 methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and O3.55 At this time, there are

no NAAQS for greenhouse gases. The scientific community is developing areas of further study to enable more precise estimates of aviation’s effects on the global atmosphere. The FAA is also currently leading or participating in several efforts intended to clarify the role that commercial aviation plays in GHG emissions and climate change. RIAC reports the GHGs generated at T.F. Green Airport annually to RIDEM in conformance with the Rhode Island Permanent Air Quality Monitoring Act. It is highly unlikely that the planned enhancements to T.F. Green Airport will result in an increase of GHG emissions in excess of 25,000 metric tons annually, which is the principle factor when considering whether to include an analysis under current NEPA guidelines for GHG reporting.56 It is highly unlikely because one of the parameters the FAA uses to assess whether or not GHG emissions associated with a project or action are potentially significant is based on the General Conformity Determination outcome. In other words, if the project or action meets the conformity test for criteria pollutants, the reason that the GHG emissions will be similarly “de minimis.”

ES.4.9 Historic, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on properties listed in or determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). A historical property is defined as “any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the NRHP maintained by the Secretary of the Interior.”57 At the

54 All greenhouse gas inventories measure CO2 emissions, but beyond CO2 different inventories include different greenhouse gases (GHGs). 55 Several classes of halogenated substances that contain fluorine, chlorine, or bromine are also greenhouse gases, but they are, for the most part, solely a

product of industrial activities. For example, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and hydro chlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) are halocarbons that contain chlorine, while halocarbons that contain bromine are referred to as bromofluorocarbons (i.e., halons) or sulfur (sulfur hexafluoride: SF6).

56 Draft NEPA Guidance on Consideration of the Effects of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, February 18, 2010. 57 16 U.S.C.section 470 (w)(5).


http:reporting.56


state and local level, significant cultural resources, including historical cemeteries, a

Documents

T.F. Green Airport Improvement Program Environmental Impact Statement and Final ... · 2013. 9. 26. · T.F. Green Airport Improvement Program . Environmental Impact Statement and