Laserfiche WebLink
estimated development costs of 53,454,000 and 54,145,000, respectively, <br />received ratings of 4. Alternatives 5 and 6 received ratings of 3 with <br />respective costs of 58,434,000 and 56,891,000. The lowest rating, 2, was given <br />to Alternatives 7 and 8, with development costs estimated at 511,888,000 and <br />510,345,000, respectively. <br />Table IV-13 s»mmari~pc t}te preliminary development costs for each <br />of the alternatives. A summary of rankings for this criterion is as follows: <br />Alternative B~t3ak: <br />1 5 <br />2 5 <br />3 4 <br />4 4 <br />5 2 <br />6 3 <br />7 2 <br />8 2 <br />3. EavironmentalImpacts <br />Environmental impacts include three major azeas: wetlands and <br />groundwater, increases in noise, and residential and business relocation. For <br />alternatives where it was impossible to make a precise analysis of <br />emiroamental impacts (for example, new airport in Seazch Area "A"), the <br />potential for negative impacts was assumed. A moderate weighting factor of <br />3 was used for environmental impacts. <br />Alternatives 1 and 2 will require no off-airport development, so both <br />received a rating of 5. Alternatives 3 and 4 both require the construction of <br />a parallel runway at Anoka County-Blaine. While no serious environmental <br />impacts are anticipated, the increase in operational capacity may contribute <br />to increased airport noise. Aa emironmental assessment would be required <br />in conjunction with the construction of this new runway. A runway extension <br />at Lake Elmo would also require as environmental assessment, and the actual <br />impacts associated with this extension cannot be adequately assessed until <br />such a study is wmpleted. Potential impacts include groundwater and <br />wetlands and residential relocation. Alternatives 3 and 4 received ratings of <br />4. <br />The remaining alternatives require major off-airport construction. <br />Alternatives 5 and 7 require major construction and property acquisition at <br />Gateway North Industrial, while Alternatives 6 and 8 call for the construction <br />of a new airport on a 500-acre site (minimum siu) that has yet to be <br />identified. The alternatives irnolving Gateway North Industrial will require <br />therelocatioa of several homes and businesses, as well as the possible increase <br />IV-53 <br />