Laserfiche WebLink
178 <br />In addition to the improvement in safety obtained from parallel runways, 1 <br />further Improvement is provided by an air traffic control tower and <br />Instrument Landing System (ILS). The air traffic control lower will pro- <br />vide a more orderly environment for aircraft operations. It will be a <br />necessity to operate parallel runways. The ILS will provide positive <br />guidance to pilots operating into the airport in terms of both heading <br />and altitude. As such it allows a higher degree of operational safety; <br />the ILS also provides environmental benefits by reducing low -altitude <br />overflights, <br />The evaluation of alternatives Included consideration of both the natural ^ <br />and human environment. The natural environmental parameters considered <br />were: (1) geology and soils, (2) vegetation and wildlife habitat, <br />(3) wetlands, (4) hydrology and water quality, and (5) air quality. The <br />human environmental parameters considered were: (1) noise, (2) sensitive <br />receptors aid special sites, (3) land use compatibility, (4) zoning com- <br />patibility, and (5) accessibility. <br />In general terms, the evaluation showed that no negative impacts exist in <br />the areas of geology and soils, vegetation aid wildlife habitat, hydro- <br />logy aid water quality, air quality, and accessibility. Some minimum <br />level of Impact can be expected on wetlands near the airport. Alterna- <br />tive A will have the least impact, Alternative B will have a greater <br />Impact than Alternative A, and Alternative C a slightly greater Impact <br />than Alternative B. _ <br />The greatest difference between the alternatives is in noise exposure. <br />In the analysis, the following conditions were evaluated: (1) the <br />existing configuration with present-day traffic, (2) the existing airport <br />configuration with traffic at capacity, (3) Alternative A, (4) Alterna- <br />tive B, and (5) Alternative C. The primary operating condition for <br />Alternative A would be in the north -south direction. Alternative B would <br />be in the east -west direction. Total noise emissions would be the same <br />for either alternative, however. Alternative A would largely concentrate <br />noise exposure in the north -south direction. Alternative B would concen- <br />trate noise exposure in the east -west operating direction. Since wind <br />