PD-17-00001 Marian Meadows Full Record with Index (2)

Home Browse Search

Marian Meadows Rezone and Subdivision Final Environmental Impact Statement 3-104 3 How will the proposal and alternatives affect the future use of the airport or result in hazards to aviation? Neither the applicant’s proposed alternative nor any of the other alternatives proposes construction in the runway protection or inner safety zones. None of the alternatives are likely to create “artificial attractors” that would increase the number of birds in the vicinity that are potential hazards to aircraft. The alternatives are not likely to increase general populations of wildlife such as deer or elk that might graze on the grass runways at the Easton State Airport. The additional population in the area and the direct connection between the airport site and the National Forest to the north may increase the likelihood that deer and elk would use the airport site as part of their range while avoiding developed areas such as the project site. If a sewer system were developed with an open basin used to discharge effluent into groundwater, this might attract additional birds to the vicinity of the approach patterns where they could increase risks to airplanes. The alternatives for development of the site may introduce additional visual hazards, particularly lights and reflected glare, according to the number of units in the alternative and whether development is included in the higher elevation areas in the eastern portion of the site. 4 How will use of the airport result in potential hazards to persons living on the project site? The extent to which use of the airport would result in potential hazards to persons living in the project site can be roughly approximated by the extent to which an alternative includes residential units located in ASZs and are therefore exposed to a higher risk from aviation accidents. None of the alternatives proposes residential land development in Zone 1 - Runway Protection or Zone 2 - Inner Safety. However, some of the alternatives do propose development in Zone 3 - Inner Turning and Zone 4 - Outer Safety. The number of residences to be developed in either Zone 3 – Inner Turning or Zone 4 – Outer Safety is identified by alternative below. Table 3-16 indicates the relative difference in exposure to risk based on the percent of accidents in each ASZ together with the number of acres in each resulting in an exposure factor per acre. The alternatives with the greatest number of lots and the greater density have higher scores. Alternative 1, the applicant’s proposed PUD, would result in 60 lots located completely or partially in the outer safety zone and 25 lots located completely or partially in the inner turning zone as indicated in Figure 3-18. This alternative has the highest exposure to risk resulting from the number of lots in ASZ 4 and farther east along the alignment of the runway and the higher density overall. The potential for “high and hot” reducing lift and performance extends additional hazards to an additional 9 lots along the runway axis farther to the east.