The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About790402.tiff EXCERPT FROM BOARD MEETING BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO NOVEMBER 26, 1979 TIME : APPROXIMATELY 11: 00 A.M. TAPE #79-145 CHAIRMAN CARLSON: We' ll call this meeting back to order. We' ll go to under old business, number 5 , consider Special Use Permit decision for Colorado Landfill, Inc. , Erie site. We did discuss this considerable length on Monday, of last week. Is there any other discussion regards to consideration of the Special Use Permit? (Pause) Is there any other testimony that you want to accept in regards to the Special Use Permit? (Pause) A motion would be then in order to either deny or to approve a re-opening. Do I take from your silence that you are not willing to reconsider? I think a motion would be in order to deny or its to specify that that is the wishes of the Board. COMMISSIONER ROE: Mr. Chairman, I 'm not sure that a motion is required. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: That is true, but I feel that a motion to deny consideration for re-opening of the Special Use Permit would definitely establish that, that' s the wishes of the Board. If we can do this -- either way. I will assume then the Chairman' s prerogative that the Board does not wish to reconsider the opening of this Special Use Permit for the Colorado Landfill. We ' ll go on, then, to number six, the Certificate of Designation for Colorado Landfill, Erie site. We do have a member of the Colorado State Health Department here, and he has a letter. Would you come forward please? Would you state your name and do you have a letter from the State Health Department? BURKE LOKEY : My name is Burke Lokey with the Colorado Department of Health and I do have a letter to the commissioners , uh, regarding the proposed Erie landfill. Would you like me to, like me to read. . . CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Please. BURKE LOKEY : the contents of the letter? 790402 PL©415 COMMISSIONER KIRBY: Please, Yes, Please. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: We do have an attendance record here that we would like to pass around for anyone who is interested in this hearing. Please sign it. BURKE LOKEY: This letter is dated November 20, 1979 . It' s to Mr. Norman Carlson, Weld County Board of County Commissioners It says: Gentlemen: This department has reviewed the engineering report and operation plane as amended, for the proposed landfill to be located approximately two miles south of Erie, Colorado. This site, operated as designed, can comply with minimum standards and department regulations as required by C.R. S. 30-20, part 1, the solid waste disposal sites and facilities act. We feel the applicant has plans to adequately alleviate hazardous concentrations of methane in the landfill after closure. The applicant has also demonstrated to our satisfaction that potential surface subsidence beneath the landfill will not adversely affect the geological integrity of the site to contain leachate, especially since a liner will be used. We are also assured that because the site is on a subsidence zone, that no construction would, would be expected which could disturb the effectiveness of the liner. The current design appears to meet the requirements for continuous all-weather access . We are not able, however, to recommend approval of this site until an air-traffic restriction is imposed at Erie Air Park. The Federal Aviation Administration guidelines, uh, parenthesis order 5200. 5 states that no landfill should be located within ten thousand feet of an airport runway used by turbo jet or jet aircraft because of the potential bird hazard. The nearest runway at the Erie Air Park is approximately 5300 feet southwest of the proposed landfill site. We have no basis to overrule this guideline which we understand is based on direct experience. Consequently we must recommend disapproval of the facility as long as turbojet or jet aircraft use the airport. The site would, however, be acceptable in accordance with the FAA guidelines for piston aircraft, minimum distance 5 , 000 feet. Thus if a restriction is imposed which limits air Erie Air Park operations to piston-type aircraft, then this department will -2- recommend approval of the site. This restriction should remain until it can be demonstrated by operation that no bird hazard exists in accordance with FAA guidelines. Thank you for submitting this information which will be retained for our records . If you have any in, any questions or need further assistance please contact this division. Sincerely, uh, James E . Martin, for Albert J. Hazel, Director. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Any comments or questions of the Board in regards to this? Does, Burke, does the FAA approve all airports, or do you know? BURKE LOKEY: Uh, what do you mean, approve? CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Well, approve the sites or, you know they have a guideline here that says that no landfill shall be located within 10 , 000 feet of the airport runway. There was a landfill there within the 10, 000 feet when this airport was installed. BURKE LOKEY : To the best of my knowledge they do not approve that. Uh, all airports. I am not up on the distinctions , though. Uh, I realize that there was a lmdfill there previously. However, uh, as I recall that landfill was also there before the department started uh, its requirements for engineering reports and design plans, which would have uh, oh, in addition I believe this FAA guideline is fairly recent also. Uh, ' 76 or so. I 'm not sure about that. COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: But that is the only way that the uh, the landfill would not receive denial --- it met all other requirements? BURKE LOKEY: Uh I , the thrust of the department is we, we' re not going to recommend disapproval of the site because it does meet all our requirements --- the minimum standards and, uh, we believe that it will adequately isolate the waste from the environment, to protect public health and the environment. We cannot recommend approval as long as there is that, the airport that has potential of flying, uh, turbojets or jet aircraft into there, because of this guideline which has also be promulgated -3- in EPA' s sanitary landfill criteria. Uh, there is a distinction there. We believe the site is a good site, uh, and ah, as , as the design report has come in we believe the operation will be satisfactory and will comply with all of our requirements. Uh, one thing we can' t recommend approval because of that uh require- ment for bird hazards. Uh, it is our belief that uh, if the FAA can publish a warning to all uh aviators that fly turbojets or jets, and, uh, saying this aircraft, this airport has a bird hazard associated with it. And, uh, that would probably be satisfy the requirements of this letter. Uh, in the event that subsequent operation of the landfill, assuming that it is approved and goes .into operation, uh, shows that there is no bird hazard associa, or bird attractant value associated with the landfill, then we would be uh we would have no objection to uh removing that restriction. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Mr. Morrison? LEE MORRISON: Mr. Chairman, I ' d like to ask uh the representative from the State Health Department a couple of questions. One is, uh am I correct that you are distinguishing between recommending disapproval and failing to recommend approval? Are those two different things? BURKE LOKEY: Uh, essentially, yes. We, what, we 've done is put it into a position where we, we cannot approve it, however, we believe that it is an approvable site except for factors which are beyond our uh jurisdiction, so to speak. It' s an incompatible land use as I understand it, and that is not some- thing that we can directly consider. However, because of this guideline that has been promulgated by EPA we can indirectly consider it. We must indirectly consider it, and that' s why we cannot recommend approval. LEE MORRISON But it does not constitute a recommendation of disapproval under uh, 30-20-105? BURKE LOKEY: I see what you mean. Uh if the county commissioners cannot comply with that requirement I would, we would recommend , be recommending disapproval, because that would not be satisfied. The distinction I was trying to make is that the site -4- in itself is approvable except for this uh, land use problem. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Well, then again under your own, under the state department' s rules and regulations that' s, the trash has to be covered daily, and there would be no attraction for birds that I can see with the trash covered. BURKE LOKEY: That' s true and that' s the way I personally feel. Uh, however there are sites in the regional area that are also nominally run according to our standards. Uh, and they have uh, a large bird population associated with them. Uh, there are other sites which we do not believe have a large bird population that are also nearby. It' s our problem is being able to tell, foretell .which type of site this will be. Uh, it may or may not depend on the, the presence of daily cover. Uh, that' s why we say that within a reasonable period of time we would uh, remove the restriction if it is shown that bird hazard does not develop. • CHAIRMAN CARLSON: I guess another question I would ask then, can we approve the Certificate of Designation without the approval of the State Health Department? COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: Would you read 30-20-105? I guess I 'm getting confused. LEE MORRISON: Yeah. This is 30-20-105. Relates to the Certificate of Designation. It says: quote, "if the Board of County Commissioners deems that a Certificate of Designation should be granted to the applicant, it shall issue the certificate and such certificate shall be displayed in a prominent place at the site and facility. The Board of County Commissioners shall not issue a Certificate of Designation if the department, uh, State Department of Health, has recommended disapproval , pursuant to Section 30-20-103" , end quote. Uh, and 30-20-103 relates to the information required in an application for the certificate. THOMAS DAVID : I had a question. In 30-20-103 , the last sentence says the application shall be referred to the department for review and, and for recommendation as to approval or disapproval, which shall be based upon criteria established by the State Board of Health, the Water Quality Control Commission, and the Air Pollution -5- Control Commission. Which of those three departments has reached out and taken the FAA regulations as and adopted it as part of their criteria? BURKE LOKEY: Do you mean officially adopted the FAA THOMAS DAVID: Well, I, I , I, in reading the statute it seems to me that the department is MALE VOICE: How do you fit it into the law? THOMAS DAVID: Limited to uh, its review to be based upon criteria established by the de, State Department of Health, the Water Qualitfy Control Commission, and the Air Pollution Control Commission. BURKE LOKEY: It' s the State Board of Health. THOMAS DAVID: Have they officially uh, adoped the FAA regulations and by reference and said that they were going to will comply with that, BURKE LOKEY: Uh, or is this something only indirectly. Uh, what has happened is EPA has come out with uh, sanitary landfill criteria. And we are referring to that under uh, some provision of the regulations which I believe, uh, allows us to make sure that all applicable rules and regulations are satisfied. LEE MORRISON: In relation to that --- EPA does have guidAlines on bird hazard and yet reference is made in your letter to the FAA guidelines, and I was wondering why that choice was made. BURKE LOKEY( FAA is the uh, originating source of the guidelines, and EPA has essentially adopted it in total. And, uh, the reason we're citing FAA is because we believe that is the agency the County Commissioners will have to uh, uh, be in contact with or interact with in order to get this restriction if that' s the way they want to go. COMMISSIONER ROE : I 'm somewhat confused about that recommendation because uh, and, a we, a week ago or so we met with the FAA on another matter and we were told point blank by the FAA that it was impossible to restrict the use of airports such as your letter reads --- a , a request. BURKE LOKEY: Uh, if you mean an absolute restriction on the, type of aircraft that fly into there, that ' s true. -6- However, the FAA does publish uh, information relating to uh the airport and its use. And they are able to publish uh, put in that information the fact that this airport has a potential bird hazard associated with it and that jet and turbojet aircraft should not use the uh site. And that' s, I think, what we're referring to in our restr, uh, words mentioning restrictions. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Are they any other questions of Burke? COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: I guesss I have a procedural question. It' s my understanding that the EPA guidelines were published in the September 13 , 1979 Federal Register which would make them become effective thirty days later, October 13 . What criteria .do you use for applicants who are already in the process of, of seeking your approval? Do they have to meet continual updates, or do they have to meet the criteria established at the time of application? CHAIRMAN CARLSON: The Special Use Permit was approved on COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: No CHAIRMAN CARLSON: September the fourteenth. COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: That doesn' t tell you BURKE LOKEY: The criteria I 'm looking at, I believe they're the same you' re talking about, uh, these are supposedly a final promulgation. Ah, they've been in the uh draft form for uh, oh, a year and a half at least, and we've seen them for a year and a half and we've been considering this particular requirement for that period of time. Uh. This is the first time it' s actually come into play. Uh, to the best of my knowledge at the state level. Uh, as far as your question goes, how do we determine a cutoff point beyond which we will not consider any new updates, I would have to say that' s not been established yet in our section, and, uh, to the best of my knowledge once the, the site is approved by the commissioners we would probably not require anything new. Uh. Other than that I can' t say. COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: Approved for the use, the Special Use Permit of approved and certificated? BURKE LOKEY : Designated. Uh. Through the certificate of Designation. The Special Use Permit is not required on all sites -7- so we go by the Certificate of Designation. According- THOMAS DAVID: I 'm still confused about whether or nor the State Board of Health, have they at an official regular meeting adopted formally, criteria that, that embraces the FAA regulations? BURKE LOKEY: Do you have a THOMASIAVID: It seems to me unless they have, they can' t consider it under the statute. LEE MORRISON: They, they have adopted regulations, uh, they do not specifically can' t --- we've got a copy there. They don' t specifically adopt FAA or uh regulations. Uh, this statement was made here by the health department representative that there is a general all-embracing clause uh, that they would operate under. The federal law that EPA has promulgated regulations under uh does apply to, uh, state control of solid waste disposal, and those • guidelines are ones that if the state does not meet minimum standards set by the federal government then the federal govern- ment will take over the solid waste, uh, regulation. And those would be the EPA regulations. THOMAS DAVID: I guess I don' t see anything in here that mentions federal government or maybe I 've just missed it. LEE MORRISON: Can you point that out to him or THOMAS DAVID: I don' t, I might have gone right over it. BURKE LOKEY: Mr. Chairman, while he' s doing that, I could read to you the, uh, the provisions of the uh, EPA regulations relating to bird hazards if you so desire. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: All right. LEE MORRISON: This would be uh, in volume 44 of the Federal Register, September 13 , 1979 , page 53463 under Section 257 . 8-8 (C) Bird Hazards to Aircraft; A facility or practice disposing of putrescible wastes that may attract birds and which occurs within ten thousand feet uh three thousand forty-four meters , of any airport runway used by only piston-type aircraft shall not pose a bird hazard facility does not pose a bird hazard it if is within that, those uh, zones of danger . CHAIRMAN CARLSON: That' s EPA regulations? -R- LEE MORRISON: Yes. Uh. They're, the, the, the distances are quite uh the same as what uh FAA would require. MALE VOICE: This is the part that (not audible) CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Is there any other questions of Burke in regards to this letter? If not, I ' ll ask the applicant to come forward, Mr. Lind. KENNETH LIND: Mr. Lokey, I think we have an item that we can clarify---it' s probably it, it' s very confusing not only to us but to the Board, I think to everybody. In other works, according to the state statutes and the state regulations, you are not recommending disapproval, is that correct? BURKE LOKEY: We'd uh, let' s say we are not recommending disapproval at this time. If it turns out that the commissioners cannot impose such restriction as we 've required, then we will be • recommending disapproval of the site. KENNETH LIND: But right now you are not recommending disapproval? BURKE LOKEY: N, That' s correct KENNETH LIND: And, in other words, now related to this restriction you are saying that if, at a request by the county commissioners, if there is an item published in the Airman' s Information Manual, that is your recommendation. For compliance. BURKE LOKEY: That would satisfy our requirements, yes. KENNETH LIND: So, right now, according to the statutes and the regulations, you have not disapproved the facility, in fact you have stated in your first paragraph that it does comply with the statutes and regulations. BURKE LOKEY: That' s correct. KENNETH LIND : And then if this item is published in the Airman' s Information Manual, that would satisfy your other, let' s call it a reservation. BURKE LOKEY : Uh. I believe so. I , that' s what I 've been led to believe. So KENNETH LIND: Another thing I 'd like to point out to the Board. Mr. Morrison has read the F , I mean EPA regulation, -9- but there is also an explanatory section of the Federal Register, Page 53459 , and I will quote from there: "Although the FAA is authorized to control aircraft operations to reduce bird hazards to aircraft, its authority does not extend to disposal facilities outside airport boundaries which may pose such hazards. It should be noted, however, that EPA is not enforcing the FAA order. The selection of the distances specified in that order, meaning the FAA order, is merely a recognition that they represent a reasonable determination of the danger zone around an airport. Likewise it should be made clear that neither this regulation nor the proposed standard prohibits of the disposal of solid wastes within the specified sitances. Instead the distances define the danger zone in which particular care must be taken to assure that no bird hazard arises. Mr. Chairman, I think basic upon the letter from the Department of Health in the statutory reference which states, uh, county commissioners shall not issue a Certificate of Designation if the department has recommended disapproval, here the department has not recommended disapproval, the statutes and the regulations have nothinguh at this point in time, have no recommendation concerning the bird hazards, and even the EPA regulations state that they're not prohibited within these distances -- uh, you just have to take certain procedures. Now last week, and I 'm sure Colorado Department of Health probably has not even received a copy, uh, EPA did formulate their classification manual guidelines for uh determining the bird hazard. I do have that. I have talked to an individual at the EPA, ah, and I will be presenting that later for your consideration. I think at this point in time, uh, what the department of health is asking is that county commissioners recommend to the FAA that they publish in the Airman' s Information Manual uh that the airport not be used by jet aircraft. This is not a prohibition, it' s only a recommendation. Uh, and I believe that' s what Mr. Lokey is stating, but I think it ' s important to note that the department has not recommended disapproval and that' s what the statute calls for. -10- (Tape Change #79 - 146) UNIDENTIFIED VOICE : We have a copy. (Not audible) CHAIRMAN CARLSON: It' s not exact. (Not audible) CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Is anyone else here who would want to speak to the favor of this Certificate of Designation? Do you have anybody, Mr. Lind, to testify? KENNETH LIND: Ah, yes, Mr. Chairman, I , I think we're probably sitting here waiting till either Mr. David or Mr. Morrison for some probably a county legal opinion, I guess, that CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Mr. David, do you have THOMAS DAVTD: On what? KENNETH LIND: Well, I think the disapproval or approval if that would be your opinion also, based upon the statutes . THOMAS DAVID: Well, I think the statutes is very easy to read and very clear. It limits the, first of all the, you cannot approve the designation with unl, if the state uh, uh, the division or rather the department has recommended disapproval pursuant to 30-20-103 . And you go to 30-20-103 and the last sentence provide that it shall be reviewed, referred to the depart- ment for review and for recommendation as to approval or disapproval which shall be baseduh, upon criteria established by the State Board of Health, Water Quality Control Commission, and the Air Control Pollution Control Commission, so I think you 're limited, uh, uh, and I .think the state is limited. I , I guess I still don' t understand whether or not, where they get the authority to, to recommend disapproval if that' s what they' re doing, based on the FAA guidelines. If they haven' t adopted that as part of their criteria, and I question whether they have authority to do the, to even adopt it. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Do you have an answer to that, Mr. Burke? BURKE LOKEY : Uh, No, I don ' t TOM DAVID; See, as an applicant, seems to me an applicant uh, has the right to rely on the statute . They read the statute, they read the word criteria, I think they have the right to be able to go to Denver and get the criteria and it should be in a readable form and, and to me that' s as far as this board and the State Department of Health. KENNETH LIND: I think that' s answered in their first paragraph in the letter. And of course, we have no objection with some, with the county requesting the FAA to place some notification in the Airman' s Information Manual. THOMAS DAVID: I guess I did, did I hear the representative from the state say they did not, they're not recommending disapproval at this time. BURKE LOKEY: That' s correct, but I think there ' s a misunderstanding here in that if the commissioners go ahead and recommend approval without satisfying our stipulation, and I 'm not making any statement as to whether we have the legal authority to, make that stipulation or not, then we would, we would have considered ourselves recommending disapproval because that requirement was not met, and I believe that' s stated later on in the, in the, uh, letter. Uh. THOMAS,DAVID: Is your requirement then, that the Board recommend to the FAA that a restriction of no jet aircraft be BURKE LOKEY: No. I believe that, that will satisfy our requirement. What our requirement is, though, is the commissioners arrange that the aircraft not be used by jet aircraft. THOMAS DAVID: Yeah, but if, if you, if you impose a condition that is impossible, then to me that' s an, you know, that' s an improper condition. BACKGROUND: Yeah, yeah, that ' s THOMASIY-1VID: You know, in other words, if, if you' re saying yes, but you, you, you, this is the condition and that condition in an impossibility, impossible to uh, to meet and, and I think I heard that it was, er BURKE LOKEY : If THOMAS IIaVID: Er CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Yes THOMAS DVID: Are you ask, only asking that we recommend it? COMMISSIONER DUNBAR: This is what we were told. THOMAS DAVID: Or that we actually, that, that the Board acts, that it be accomplished? BURKE LOKEY: This is the reason I said that was my opinion, that, that would satisfy our requirement, because and the reasoning behind that was that if, ah, the aircraft is published as being uns, the airport is published as being unsafe for jet aircraft, ah, it would thereby put the burden of responsibility on the person who flies into that airport with a jet aircraft. Uh. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Okay, now, there ' s farming around that Air Park .and the farming is gonna bring on birds. How are you gonna prove that they' re coming from the farm and not from the airport? I mean, I , we were sitting down there at the FAA office and, and there within five or six hundred feet there was a, a flock of geese flying right over Stapelton. I 'm sure a, the control tower probably alerted all the aircraft that those geese were flying over the airport. BURKE LOKEY: I don' t understand your question. How are we going to show that the birds that are present are CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Are coming from the landfill? BURKE LOKEY: From the landfill and not your CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Not from the, from the farming operations, and there ' s quite a, quite a bit of marshy ground down there and, and that could attract the birds. BURKE LOKEY: I believe that would, I believe what you' re is when you plow CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Yeah, when you plow you BURKE LOKEY: Get a lot of birds CHAIRMAN CARLSON : When you farm there ' s birds. BURKE LOKEY: That' s the reason we did not state a time requirement. Uh, if you see a lot of birds on a very restricted time period, uh, seasonally, then I believe that would be evidence that it was due to something other than a landfill. I , I believe that ' s possible to show. Uh, it probably would cost more _l2_ money from the consultant. Uh, but it is possible to show. Uh, the, as far as, as imposing an impossible restriction, we have talked about that back at the state and uh, it' s it' s general or the opinion is that if the condition cannot be met because it is procedurally impossible, uh, then we will disapprove the landfill. Whether or not we have the authority to do so, we will. THOMAS RAVID: Due to it, are jet aircraft daily in and out of there, or turbojets? Are they a regular, uh, visitor? BURKE LOKEY: I don' t know. I do not know if they use it on a regular basis. THOMAS EKVID : Oh BURKE LOKEY: I believe there is one jet stationed at the or based at the airpark. But Ion, not even sure of that. The uh problem we have is that it is possible for jet aircraft to fly into there, and it is being done, if not daily, at least on a regular basis, as far as we can understand. And this clearly uh would violate the guideline uh if the landfill proves to be a bird attractant, which we cannot show yet, er you cannot show it until after the landfill gets into operation, at this point in our knowledge. THOMAS DAVID: Well, we can' t go into operation, I guess they can' t operate until use has been approved. Do I understand the letter then to say that you are not recommending disapproval, but probably will as soon as turbojet or jet aircraft do in fact start using the airport? BURKE LOKEY: No, uh, we will recommend disapproval if the commissioners do not make some provision for restricting the type of aircraft that fly into the Air Park. If you cannot, they we will disapprove your landfill. If you approve the landfill before making that restriction, but are making reasonable uh efforts to secure that type of restriction, then we will, you know, the letter could be considered as an approval. I think, the important thing to note there is the restriction is there whether , uh, the restriction has to be there, from our point of view. And if it cannot be there , then we cannot approve the landfill . -14- THOMAS DPVID : Well, I think it would be a rather simple matter for the Board to pass a resolution recommending to the FAA that, that Air Park be restricted to piston-type aircraft. CHAIRMAN CARLSON : Put the THOMAS DAVID. Now whether, what they would do it' s another thing. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Put the emphasis on the FAA rather than because we have no control over that and I , I feel that THOMAS DAVID: No, that' s what I 'm saying. Is that type of thing satisfactory? Is that what the BURKE LOKEY: We recognize that the commissioners have no direct authority over the, the use of the Air Park. Uh, our intent was to get the commissioners to go to FAA and work out some reasonable, un, restriction. Uh, as before, I believe that publishing this information in the uh, whatever information is available on airports, would be satisfactory, because I do not believe, I, and I 'm not sure about this, but I do not believe that, uh, there would be a lot of jet traffic into the airport, and those that do would be clearly aware of what was, what their hazards were. Uh, regardless, uh, I , you ca, you cannot look at me as a final authority as what would be satisfactory. COMMISSIONER DUNBAR: Tom, would there be such a thing that we can restrict the FAA to this, I mean THOMAS DAVID: Well COMMISSIONER DUNBAR: Doesn' t know, I don' t know, there' s no THOMAS DAVID : I don' t even know, but I understand what I 've heard today that probably can' t. But I guess what I still don ' t understand is whether the State Department of Health is re, is simple asking you to go through the motions and try to restrict it or whether they ' re asking you to accomplish in the stric , restriction, and there ' s quite a difference. KENNETH LIND: Mr. Lokey, are you asking the commissioners to attempt the FAA to put this in the Airman' s Information Manual? BURKE LOKEY : Ah, the intent of the restriction was that the commissioners accomplish the restriction on the Air Park -15- through whatever means that is available. Ah, I was, you have no direct authority. Ah, that is the intent of the restriction, though, that it be accomplished through whatever means . COMMISSIONER KIRBY: Oh, Okay, then that does become an impossible restriction. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: It is, it is impossible and I guess I ' ll have to ask Mr. Lokey is this, the letter from the staff of the Colorado Department of Health or has this letter been approved by the Board of Health or, or is the staff promulgating rules and regulations that uh the EPA says is not necessary but FAA does. BURKE LOKEY: It' s from the staff, as to the rest of . your question I CHAIRMAN CARLSON: The staff is promulgating rules then to the restrictions on the Certificate of Designation. BURKE LOKEY, The letter is from the staff. As to the rest of your question, I do, I don' t know. FEMALE COMMISSIONER: (whispered) See what John Hall has to say. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Mr. Hall JOHN HALL: Uh, may I say one remark and I 'm coming to you as a pilot of ten years and about fiften hundred hours of flying time, and that is I , it' s quite a common practice for airports to have restrictions or, maybe not restrictions, but at least notice to airmens, notems as they're called, about particular hazards in the area and this is not uncommon at all. Practically every large airport that one goes into, in the remark section of the airport advisory, there will be some type of remarks about a, an obstacle to flying, towers, what have you, and like I say, this is not uncommon at all to have this. Now I would submit the question to the State Health Department, would this satisfy the State Health Department, if in the Airman' s Information Manual under the remarks section of the airport that a notice be published there simply saying that a, a, a solid waste act, a facility exists at fifty-three hundred feet to the northeast of the facility. Pilots beware, something to that effect. Would that satisfy the State Health Department? Because I think it' s quite clear that there ' s no way that this Board, or even the FAA can restrict that airport down there to to piston-type traffic only. That' s a privately owned airport. But it' s certainly no problem to publish just an information type of document. BURKE LOKEY: Well, once again, I believe that would accomplish the aims of the department in that uh, jet aircraft probably would not use the airport uh unless they were based there and believe it was safe for whatever reason. Uh, I can see where I 've been unclear; uh, inasfar as actually prohibiting jet aircraft to fly into the airport, I don' t believe it can be done. Uh, My, What my opinion was that by publishing this information in the Airman' s Information Manual, uh, any air, any pilot that flew into that airport knowing that hazard was there, uh, would have a problem uh later on if he did crash or have a bird uh strike. Uh, knowing that, he probably would not fly into the airport. That' s why I believe the restriction would be accomplished. Uh, that I believe would satisfy if it was worded uh so as to warn all jet aircraft pilots that that problem was there would be satisfactory to the department. Is that clear? COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: Mr. Hall, you made a statement that this was a private airport. JOHN HALL: Well, I made statement it was a privately owned airport for public use. Uh, if that will make a difference. COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: Yeah, it does. JOHN HALL: Yeah. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Any other questions of the Board? COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: Well then, just to clear it up once more, I understand that the State Health Department is not recommending disapproval, but that they wish this Board to have published a notice in the airman' s manual that uh that solid waste site could be a hazard. Is , is that basically what you are saying? BURKE LOKEY: Right. COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: Let ' s see if we, we think should continue KENNETH LIND: Thank you for the clarification. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions for Mr. Lokey. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Do you have anybody that you want? KENNETH LIND: Yes, we do. Mr. Chairman, I was wondering if the county staff had any presentation. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Mr. Fortner. GARY FORTNER: The Board requested that we review the criteria for the designation hearing as well as list the issues which have been raised since the Special Use hearing and we are prepared to do that if the Board so wishes. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: All right. VICKIE TRAXLER: Section 30-20-104 of the Colorado Department of Health Regulations for Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities lists the following factors to be considered by the Board of County Commissioners in its hearing concerning the t Certificate of Designation for the proposed landfill: (a) The effect that the solid wastes disposal site and • facility will have on the surrounding property, taking into consideration the types of processing to be used, surrounding property uses and values, and wind and climatic conditions; (b) The convenience and accessbility of the solid wastes disposal site and facility to potential users; (c) The ability of the applicant to comply with the health standards and operating procedures provided for in this part 1 and such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the department; (d) Recommendations by local health departments . Items b, c, and d have been addressed by the applicant for the proposed landfill in the application materials and subsequent letters. The first item listed concerning land use considerations has also been addressed by the applicant in the submitted application materials. However, concerns with land use matters -18- have also been identified in various letters sent to the Board since the approval of the Special Use Permit. Although some of the issues identified in the letters were discussed during the Special Use Permit review process, the Department of Planning Services staff feels that these issues are still relevant at the Certificate of Designation stage. Other issues may not have been discussed fully at the time of the Special Use Permit hearings and therefore should also be discussed at this time. The Department of Planning Services staff has reviewed the letters submitted with regard to the Certificate of Designation. The following list summaries those issues as discussed in the letters submitted: 1. Hazards to aircraft landing in the vicinity of the landfill resulting from increased numbers of birds • at the new landfill site; 2. The possibility of incorrect wind direction information submitted by Colorado Landfill with the Special Use Permit application. This new information would suggest the possibility of increased noise and odors in the direction of the Town of Erie; 3 . Impacts as a result of fugitive dust and gaseous emissions from the landfill, and traffic generated by the landfill on scientific instruments at the Boulder Atmospheric Observatory; 4. Impacts of increased fugitive dust due to earth movement at the landfill site and truck traffic in the vicinity of the landfill site resulting in degradation of the regional air quality; 5. Increased odor from landfill activities in the immediate vicinity and within the Town of Erie; 6 . Increased noise in the vicinity of the landfill and the Town of Erie from heavy equipment at the landfill site and on roads going to and from the site. 7 . The aesthetic impacts of the landfill activities on the Town of Erie to the west of the landfill site. -19- The impact on surrounding property values from the landfill activites; 9 . Pollution of surface waters from storm water runoff from the surface of the landfill operations; 10. Pollution of groundwaters due to possible seepage from the landfill site into local aquifers over time; 11. Potential negative impacts on the long range plans and the comprehensive plan of the Town of Erie; 12. Impact of increased truck traffic on the Town of Erie and the service capability of local roads; 13 . Potential of increased strip highway development due to the location of the landfill. The Department of Planning Services staff feels that the majority of those impacts generated by the landfill have been mitigated by the Development Standards in the Special Use Permit. However, it is difficult to assess whether the potential for bird hazards to aircraft, the possible incorrect wind direction, the impacts of fugitive dust on scientific instruments and the potential for negative impacts on the long range plans of the Town of Erie have been adequately dealt with in the Special Use Permit Development Standards. The extent to which these impacts can be mitigated depends upon the guidelines from the State Health Department, the cooperation of the applicant, Colorado Landfill, Inc. , and the directions and/or restrictions given by the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Any questions of the planning staff in regards to this presentation? Mr. Lind. KENNETH LIND: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, due to time necessity and a few other time commitments for some witnesses that were present I 'm going to have to interrupt our presentation shortly and take a few items out of order, uh, but some names have been given to me by individuals who have requested to be heard by the Board and I would ask the Board to listen to those individuals prior to our presentation. I believe uh, the first one is Mr. Art Garcia. -20- ART GARCIA: Uh, I 'm here uh, just a neighbor to the west of the landfill. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: You' re talking about the present landfill, Greeley-- • ART GARCIA: The Greeley landfill, yeah. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Milliken landfill. ART GARCIA: Um huh. And I 'm not sure why I 'm here, but uh, I 'm here to answer any questions if anybody has any. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: You have observed the operation of the present landfill and uh how do you assess that operation? ART GARCIA: Well, I think uh, Colorado Landfill is making a sincere effort. They're doing a better job than has been in the past. Uh. There' s, there ' s problems anywhere connected with a landfill and I don't know --- these problems will arise on a day to day basis. If you have a windy day you' re going to have problems. If uh, as far as birds, uh, you' ll see them and you won' t see them. They' re not, they're not there constantly. I don' t know how anybody would uh say that these birds are gonna be there. They're just like when you cut hay, they're there sometimes and sometimes they're not. You know. But I think they' re, they' re filling the landfill daily, which is good. Uh, this uh covering the pickups coming out to the landfill has really been good. I didn' t think it would make that much difference, but it does. Uh, because people --- uh seems to me like some people' they are only interested in getting rid of their trash and they don' t care where they put it after they get rid of it. If it falls alongside of the road, they don' t care. Soon as we had this covered thing, it ' s it' s helped a great deal. COMMISSIONER DUNBAR: How far did you say, or did say, you lay, lived from this ART GARCIA: I adjoin it. COMMISSIONER DUNBAR: Right next to it. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Your house is what, about a quarter of a mile from it? ART GARCIA: Yeah, maybe a quarter mile, half mile -21- COMMISSIONER DUNBAR: How long have you been living there in this . ART GARCIA: ' 52 CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Since 1952? • ART GARCIA: Uh huh. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Does the Board have any other questions of Mr. Garcia? Thank you, Art. ART GARCIA: Uh huh. KENNETH LIND: The next individual is Mr. Watada, Ft. Lupton ALBERT WATADA: I 'm Albert Watada, Fort Lupton. I guess today I 'm here for different purpose than what I 've been accustomed to coming up here for. It has been a great pleasure to have the Colorado Landfill as our neighbor. For the first time since this landfill has existed, we've seen such a mark improvement in the site. They have taken care of their property. They have made this a very attractive looking place. No landfill can be real attractive, but it is much better than, than it ever has been. They have taken care of dust problem, odor problem, trash problems. I have yet to see any flock of birds over this landfill that which we are neighbors to. Our more, there' s more birds out in the field where there' s grain, where there' s marshes, where there' s water. But in the landfill I question if there' s any birds to in existence. And may I repeat again, they have been a real good neighbor. They have cooperated with us. They have done everything in going out of their way to correct any problem that has existed up, since they have taken over this property. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: You' re talking about the landfill in the Fort Lupton area? ALBERT WATADA: Yes , that is correct. Be glad to answer any other questions that come forward. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Board have any questions of Mr . Watada? COMMISSIONER ROE : I might add to what Mr. Watada is saying. Albert was one of my prime complainers about the operation of the landfill prior to Colorado Landfill so there ' s a , this testimony shows uh a change in his attitude. -22- ALBERT WATADA: Oh yes. So much happier now. (Laughter) CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Thank you, Al . ALBERT WATADA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Mr. Lind • KENNETH LIND: Next individual I believe it' s Mr. Dave Hayes. He' s also a neighbor uh at the Greeley-Milliken site. It' s interesting here, I believe he' s the grandson of Mrs. Ella Spomer who violently objected to the landfill when it first went in. I 'm not sure, uh, if the current members of the Board heard that original designation, but uh, Mr. Hayes has a few comments concerning the Greeley site. DAVE HAYES: Well, I imagine I ' ll say about the same things everyone else. Uh, Nobody really wants to see a landfill go next to ya, but since Mr. Keirnes and uh has taken over, and has bought this, we have seen a a gr, a lot of difference. Uh. We don' t have white trees when the wind blows anymore. We haven' t had any of the great winds, but uh before the stuff was never covered. I believe now it is. Uh. They have done a lot of pickup, fencing, I 've noticed that they are covering their material a lot better. Uh. I guess time' ll tell. Uh, you might say they've been there since June. Uh. My grandmother, my uncle, and my dad were a little bit hesitant to have me come and tell you what, what we 've seen since June. And uh, if there' s any other questions we'd be glad to glad to ask or answer them. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Any questions of Mr. Hayes? Thank you, Mr. Lind. KENNETH LIND: You 're probably wondering what the relevancy of that was. However in the Certificate of Designation, uh, consideration of factors, one of those is the ability of the applicant to comply with health st standards and operating procedures as promulgated by the Colorado Department of Health and the county department of health. I think those were statements that Colorado Landfill can comply with those. There ' s no question that they will continue to comply. Getting back into order , uh, Mr . Chairman and members of the Board, they were here before you for it ' s carred the Certificate of Designation hearing for a landfill -71- which we like to call the Southwest County landfill located in Section 29 , T1N, R68W, Weld County, Colorado. We've been before you many times, I realize that. Uh. Our, our main problem we have to make a record for this hearing so you' ll• have to bear with us cause I I don' t think we have any choice but to go through everything again. Uh. I really consider this as an extension of the Special Use Permit procedures for the landfill. There' s no question it' s been a long and extensive procedure. I know I can even ask my family about this. Uh. Phone calls I get, some favorable --- even had a few threatening phone calls and they've scared to drive with me anymore. Everytime we go out and drive somewhere, it' s always if there' s landfill within ten miles we have to take a detour and take a look at the landfill. My, I think they' re really beginning to wonder about me. They never warned me about this in law school. Uh. But today we 're going to further develop, I won' t say large amounts of information was given to you but a vast amount of information, not only to you, to the state health department, numerous agencies of govern- ment. We're going to discuss some of the problems, negative points, positive elements, and then benefits to the citizens of Weld County which is really what we're here for. It' s the consideration. I think one of the main questions, does this landfill in southwest Weld County fit in with the goals of the citizens of Weld County through the commissioners and can it be operated in accordance with the state, county, and federal standards. Well, first, let' s take a, a look at some of those goals. Approximately one year ago you asked your staff to develop a comprehensive solid waste management program for Weld County. That program basically was completed in the form of a pro-active approach from your staff and it was specifira Ily designed to meet the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 . You also wanted to establish a definite program for this county for handling its solid waste. Now theplan that you were given February, March of last year uh, your staff reviewed the current procedures and made comments on that. Now some of those items that they made recommendations for changing the program: -24- 0ne . Amend the existing contract with Weld Landfill, Inc. I point out, of course at that time you were contracted with Weld Landfill, Inc. We were. not in the picture. There was the suggestion of a finance, a, a five percent surcharge to finance the solid.waste program. Recommendation to operate Greeley-Milliken. Next recommendation was to close Eaton, Windsor, Fort Lupton, Prospect Valley, and finally to develop two regional landfills in Weld. One to be in the Fort Lupton-Erie area. Now to date uh, let' s look at what has been done. The contract was amended that was with Colorado Landfill at the time uh, Landfill purchased Weld Landfill. Was purchased by a local individual, a long-time resident and family of Weld County. Mr. Keirnes and his family have to answer not only to you but to the citizens of Weld County. We 're, Mr. Keirnes is not an outside living out of this county occasionally coming in to take advantages, reap the profits, whatever. He' s here, he' s concerned, he' s demonstrated that concern, and I think you've heard from some of the neighbors what he' s attempting to do. Now the five percent surcharge was enacted. This brings a substantial amount of money to the county, at least we hope it will in the future. Uh, in allowing the county to use this for roadside cleanup, road work, dust abatement, the health department review, planning and engineering supervish, supervision, Colorado Landfill is a tax-paying entity in this county. It' s done for the citizens of Weld County, the fees are generated for the benefit of these citis, these citizens, and we ' re there to take the operations off of the county tax role which has been done and I think been done very successfully. Now, of course, Greeley-Milliken is operating. There ' s been new fencing, uh, equipment purchases, new procedures enacted, and I think you've heard some of those. Finally, as far as closing some I , uh, landfills, Fort Lupton and Windsor have been recommended for closing, Eaton in the near future. So that gets us down to one of your last recommendations , which was to develop a regional landfill in the Lupton-Erie area , and possibly one in the north area when Eaton is phased out. Now along with this recommendation, -?5- there were certain items concerning a Special Use Permit procedures and zoning resolutions. Now those current procedures required the review of the following items for a landfill : compatibility with surrounding area, harmony with character of the neighborhood, and existing agricultural uses , the need for the proposed use, the effect on the immediate area, the effect on future development, health safety welfare to inhabitants of Weld County. Now there were also recommendations made for the future. How do we look at these things a year from now? There were recommendations there changing submittal requirements, review criteria on standards of operation. These included: proximity to arterial highways, depth to ground water, faults and fractures, soils, cover, siting near population centers, wind considerations, no siting on prime agricultural land, no siting in a flood plain. And then operating criteria: Your daily cover, compaction, wind fencing, emergency closure, material restrictions, and hours of operations. Point out those items are covered presently by the state department of health, and I think it' s appropriate for the county to consider those items. Now, you as the commissioners of course are act, asked to in fact uh, in fact you've asked, that Colorado Landfill come up with a landfill program for Weld County, and you've asked that this be probably the best in the state and possibly in the nation. My experience with Colorado Landfill I think that goal is well within hand and it has come about as a result of Mr. Keirnes and his family, pretty good size staff of engineers , attorneys, you name it, we've all been working on it. Uh, and let' s look at some of those items that have done, have been accomplished for Weld County. And again, I 'm going to stress for Weld County. The first was the approval by the Board of industrial development bonds to finance the regional sites, equipment purcha-sed, uh, other items necessary to improve the sites . -Well, Mr. Keirnes did start investigating that possibility. We came up with industrial bonds with somewhere between nine and ten percent interest. He didn' t rest there. Some new information came up, and with the help of engineers, accountants , lawyers , brokers , bondsmen, your staff, the federal government, came up with what' s been called -26- an SBA guarantee for pollution program. It' s required numerous trips to Washington, substantial work for application, but what it resulted: approximately two weeks ago, SBA issued a letter, I believe you do have that letter, indicating they' d approved one million dollars financing guarantee and they were still considering another three hundred thousand. Gave us a Triple-A rating for this due to the SBA backing. Now the significance of the Triple-A rating: this meant that those bonds could be sold for approximately six and a half to seven percent---a very substan- tial savings to the citizens of Weld County who use these facilities . It will be reflected in the rates, and we hope that it' ll keep the rates down. Now along with that, uh, after the Special Use Permit hearing then the next step was this Certificate of Designation. The Southwest Weld County landfill near Erie was the first in the state, and I do believe in the nation, to come under the new EPA review procedures. In short, this site has been the most thoroughly reviewed, tested, analyzed, drilled, explored, discussed landfill in Colorado and probably in the nation. In our opinion, and in the opinion of many people who have studied this site, this proposed site is probably the best location for a landfill in the southwest region of Weld County. On all bases, the surrounding land, the hydrographical structure, soils, it' s been studied, and it' s it' s an excellent site. Of course there have been some problems raised since the Special Use Permit hearing and those have been studied, they've been analyzed and they've been answered. The problem we 've come up against though: the landfill has been the subject and of an extreme amount of mis-statements, false information, and I 'm even going to have to admit it, some outright lies. This information has been generated by several individuals, some of them probably government officials, and which I submit to you has been a great disservice to this county and to their commun, community. First one of these which has never been presented to his board, quite interestingly enough, has been an attack that Erie has never been involved in the Special Use Permit procedure or the Certificate of Designation procedure. These statements have been made to the newspapers , the Colorado _77_ Department of Health, the Colorado Land Use Commission, to name a few. Now, in fact, it was even alleged recently that there was a conspiracy by the commissioners and Colorado Landfill to keep Erie in the dark. We didn' t want the citizens of Erie to know what was going on. Let' s take a look at the facts: The very first procedure where Erie got involved was on June ? or June 6 at the hearing to close the Erie landfill and to designate Colorado Landfill as the operator. Two council members, several members of Erie appeared at that hearing, objected to the closing of the Erie site, they even appeared at, at least one work session prior to that hearing. Well, on July 5, the Special Use Permit application was submitted to the county. In July the planning staff submitted letters requesting comments and review. During July and August, the county received comments from the Weld County Health Department, the Weld County Engineering Department, Town of Erie, adjoining landowners, petitions both in favor and opposition, Colorado Geological Survey, Colorado Department of Natural__ Resources, United States Department of Agriculture, Colorado Water Conservation Board, Colorado Department of Health, Dacono Fire Protection District, numerous other individuals. Now specifically looking at Erie, and their complaint, they were notified in July of the application. The Planning Commission reviewed that plan on August 2 , made comment on August 3 . Next Erie was informed of the meeting to be held on Spetember 4 , ' 79 for the Planning Commission. No one from Erie appeared. Apparently they had no interest at that time. Uh, there' s no question that the Erie town council had, could have discussed this issue, they had the opportunity to do so, in fact they almost had two months to review it. Now, after the first planning commission hearing on September 14 , well then there was a commissioner hearing on September 14 . Again nobody from Erie , Erie appeared. Well finally the Certificate of Designation, the first hearing was scheduled October 24 . Anybody from Erie? Nobody. Now, after that hearing, there were comments made to the Land Use Commission, Department of Health, criticizing this county for not informing them. I submit to you that' s totally -28- false, they've had every opportunity to review this application and at all times have failed to do so. Well, one comment has been raised, and that' s Erie has now changed its mind and is opposing the landfill due to these problems, or alleged problems relating to no participation by Erie. That' s been covered. The aircraft-bird hazard, the water waste and safety problem ground water surface water, the wind, and the Boulder Atmospheric Observatory. First, addressing the wind issue there have been several letters to the commissioners, State Department of Health, stating the wind data submitted to the State Department of Health is false, inaccurate, Town of Erie has supposedly been provided with accurate information. I won' t really cover this issue-- Mr. Nelson Weer will, but you' ll learn that the wind rows pattern he presented was developed over years of study, not the month of September, 1978 which is all the information which has been provided to Erie. Supposed this new information for Erie will be carrying dust and noise and odor into town. Mr. Nelson will discuss that. Now the Boulder Atmospheric Observatory, there the problem is wind, bird hazard, supposedly dust and gases. Covered the wind, uh. Dust, of course we have the surcharge to help and the development standard covers that. Additionally we 're required to have an air pollution permit for any dust emissions. The bird hazard: supposedly aircraft from BAG fly over the site, but you will later see that the tower is more than two miles away, there' s no uh requirement that aircraft fly over the site, in fact it' s very easy to avoid. Then we have gas and emissions from the landfill. We find that very interesting. Depending on who has made the presentations for NCAR-NOAA, supposedly this site for the tower was studied anywhere from one to three hour, uh from one to three years. A question which was posed to them at one hearing before Colorado Department of Health, when you put up this tower did you know of the existing landfill, and the response was ' no' . Well, that, it wa at first sight was almost funny, but then you start thinking about it, supposedly they studied this sight for three years but didn' t even know that there was a landfill within a few miles of them. I found that rather shocking . That -29- landfill, the old one, had been in place for ten years and yet there' s been no problem, uh, or at least nobody has made a complaint while the tower' s been operation even though the landfill was being operated itself. And I might add, operated very poorly-- not covered, trash blowing all over. Then we get into water wastes and safety problems. Again there was a November 9 letter to the Town, from the Town of Erie to the Department of Health talking about water. Now I find this le, letter November 9 to be very interesting because the two questions raised in that letter were specifically discussed before the Department of Health which was prior to the November 9 letter. Yet again, here they bring it up. We' re going to be dumping carcinogenic wastes into rivers and streams around the landfill, the wind direction is wrong, it' s uh I found it very hard to comprehend. Then there' s been additional information, and we' ll call it false information. Three hundred trucks per day running through Erie. Three hundred and twenty acres on the landfill site. I would submit to you that there ' s been a very concerted effort to disseminate false information to the citizens of Erie. We're not sure where they're coming from. This has been even printed in newspapers. I ' ll quote from the October 30 Longmont Times - Call, Ah, Mr. Bill Carley, operator of AeroSystems, Inc. , quote, "The County Commissioners have been paid off by Colorado Landfill, Inc. in return for allowing the company exclusive rights to operate landfills in Weld County. " End quote. Wayne Miller, another airpark resident, There are no controls for hazardous waste at the proposed landfill. Dangerous chemicals such as PCB could be dumped and would run into Coal Creek. The state has estimated three hundred large trucks will travel to dump daily on access routes through the Town of Erie. That' s an example what we've, the false information that' s been presented. In fact I ' ll even go so far as to call it outright defamation and slander, some of these comments, not only to the landfill but also to the commissioners. Then of course, we get to the bird problem. Uh, a lot of that' s been false. You've heard the EPA standards that I read to you this morning . EPA has also commented that available data is insufficient to support the setting of national -30- regulations to cover bird hazard problems. EPA does make it clear these bird hazard problem is an increase in the likelihood of bird and aircraft collisions. Solid waste disposal within the danger zone may continue to operate so long as it can be shown that the operation can be managed in such a way as to not increase the risk of collision within the specified distances. At this point in time; I will reserve comments on this until it really is brought before you as an issue, but we do have information from a noted ornithologist professor concerning this bird problem. Our contention right now also, there has never been a reported bird strike at the Tri-County Airport, at least as reported to FAA. There has never been a complaint, all of this since the old landfill was operated. With open trash in view, open garbage. We don't have an existing problem--that' s the fact of the situation. Everything has been guess work, hypotheses, well maybe you will create a problem. We submit with EPA standards and will be operating properly. There won' t be a problem. And of course, we get to the comprehensive plan. Well I find this argument very interesting. Have a Town of Erie, their comprehensive plan. In 1973 . After reviewing this pretty extensively some of their draft, well in fact they have two items, one is the draft land use plan of the Erie for November, ' 79 , created in November 1979 . Their recommend- ations are no development in subsidence areas, no development in the one-hundred year flood plain. Here we are in Section 29, two miles from Erie, it' s on a subsidence area, but yet we keep hearing 'well, that' s planned for a residential area' . Their own draft land use states no development in subsidence area. They also comment on new residential development should be uh, well it, pardon me, let me start over there . It states new residential development should be adjacent to the Town of Erie and between the airpark south of town and then west on lands annexed to town. Suggesting light industrial south of town and then open space and park between the Coal Creek flood plain and the subsidence areas. That' s where we ' re located. Now getting directly to their ' 73 comprehensive plan, that plan suggests, well it comments that southeast of Erie between Coal Creek and Community Ditch the land -31- is severly Bisected and undesireable for farming or extensive development. Here we are again, we are located between Coal Creek and Community Ditch. Then we have some plates--I apologize, I only have one copy of this. The first one is Plat A which dis- cusses the current land uses. Well, right here in Section 29, in the middle where the landfill is to be located we have a gray diagram calling for an industrial area. A landfill, I submit, it pretty close to an industrial development, and surrounding agricultural areas. Then we go to Plat 9 , which is the future development of Erie. Section 29 , designated as open area, because it' s over a subsidence area. It' s going to take a long time for the Town of Erie to grow into this area. Our best estimate of the landfill is ten years of operation. At the end of ten uears, what will be done with that landfill? Can' t have construction on it. It will either be dryland farming or open area, so I submit it fits in perfectly with the Town' s of Erie' s future development plans. By their own, ah, recommendation. Now many of these issues which I 've briefly touched on will be developed later. I think you've got to remember that your decision has got to be based on facts, not conjecture. It' s got to be based on studies that have been done, and not, well, perhaps this will happen, perhaps this won' t happen. This landfill is for Weld County, it' s not for Colorado Landfill, and I think the information you will receive later in this hearing will help substantiate that and will allow you to make a decision that the Certificate of Designation should be approved. Again due to some time limit- ations, we ' re going a little bit out of order. I 'd like to call upon Mr. Duncan Keirnes, uh, he has some outstanding qualifications as a pilot familiar with air operations and I think he has some very pertinent comments concerning the area from the landfill and hazards. DUNCAN KEIRNES : I 'm Duncan Keirnes and uh to review some of the qualifications I have, I 've been called before you as an expert pilot witness in reference to the landfill proximity to the airpark. Been a citizen of Colorado and Weld County all my life; I went to the Air Force Academy and graduated with -32- aeronautical engineering degree in 1973 with honors. From there I went to jet pilot training at Reese Air Force Base in Texas. I learned how to fly the F-4, it' s a Air Force fighter in Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona. From there I 've flown the F-4 for the last six years. I 've just gotten out of the Air Force uh about a month and a half ago. I 've got about twenty-one hundred hours of flying time, about five hundred hours of civilian flying and the rest of it in military aircraft. I 've flown almost everywhere in the free world that the fighter aircraft can be flown, in Europe, in the Pacific region, and all over the United States. My primary experience in flying was tactical aircraft and low-altitude navigation. We've done uh extensive (not audible) through navigation in through New Mexico. I was stationed down in New Mexico for a while and I 've done a lot of low-level navigation up through Colorado. That entails flying a uh fighter aircraft at, at between one hundred and five hundred feet above the ground. We normally fly between a hun two hundred and forty knots, correction four hundred and twenty knots, and a five hundred forty knots. I 've personally taken a couple of bird strikes in my aircraft. Uhs, its a hazard that goes with flying in low-altitute regime. It' s something we watch out for when we plan our low altitude routes and we need to become familiar with the route in order to avoid high uh dense uh densely bird populated areas. Something I 'd like to add here, even at five hundred knots, low alt, low altitude, a competent pilot can avoid a bird when he sees them. Uh, it' s true that you can get distracted and be looking in the wrong position, but the, the speed that the aircraft fly, even jet aircraft, uh civilian jet aircraft are approach speeds that are normally around a hundred and twenty knots-substantially slower than what I was flying around at. At that speed you can certainly, uh, have time to react from, uh, a bird if you' re looking out the front of the aircraft where it' s going to hit you. So my other qualifications so far as civilian flying is concerned; I 'm a certified flight instruction, I 've got an air- lines transport pilot rating with a Cessna Citation type rating, that ' s a business jet. Right now I make my living , uh, teaching -33- flying. I 'd like to direct your attention to this map. Got the Greeley Landfill, er the Colorado Landfill site, Erie Air Park outlined here. (Garbled) the NCAR Tower.: it' s about two miles away from the landfill. I 'd like to explain the traffic patterns in the Erie Air Park area. Normal traffic pattern altitude for light aircraft is eight hundred feet HEL. When you' re landing to the north on runway three-three , the pattern is what they call non-standard pattern or a left-hand turn to final. This is depicted, well it would be you'd be flying on the west side of that north-south runway. A correction, that is the standard pattern if you' re landing from the north. It' s a left hand turn upon, you make a left hand turn and your final roll- out heading would be towards the north and on the center line of this north runway. If you' re landing towards the south, that' s runway one-five. You' d be making a right-hand turn to final. That would be either non-standard pattern and it' s to the west of this runway right here, and you can see easily see that it' s uh located away from the landfill. The runways there are, the north-south runway, as I understand it, around five thousand feet long and it' s paved and the east-west runway is around four thousand feet long and it' s also paved. The west, the property runway as I understand that they use down there, I 've got opportunity to fly my light aircraft down into the pattern and uh have uh shot uh touch-and-go as on uh the un cross-wind runway as well as the primary runway, the north-south runway. The cross- wind runway you' d be using in the event of a high high wind situation you wouldn' t want to land with a large crosswind and in the event of that, they use a standard pattern in both cases . That' s a left-hand turn to final. If you're landing towards the west the runway two-seven, you' d be south of this runway on your downwind leg. And if you' re landing towards, uh east, you' d be north of this runway on your downwind leg, left-hand turn to final. For you that aren' t real familiar with the way pattern works, or how you uh normal uh aircraft landing pattern you ' re coming in to land, you parallel the runway on the opposite heading as the run, uh, runway you ' re going to land on. Say you' re going to land -34- on runway uh three-three, or land towards the north you'd parallel the north runway headed south, making left-hand turns to the east and then finally back towards the north. To me it would be a very easy thing while, as you can see, there' s only one pattern in this uh whole design of the air, airpark that would conflict or overfly the uh landfill area. To me it would be a very easy thing to uh change it to it to a nonstandard pattern so that all the traffic is either south of east-west runway or north of the north-south or west of the uh north-south runway, so that even on their downwind leg at eight hundred feet above the ground, they would be at least this five thousand feet right here or fifty-four hundred feet in their normal downwind leg for light aircraft, three thousand feet uh further out from that so they' d be at least uh eighty-five hundred to nine thousand feet away from the landfill till they did get turned on to final and lined up uh in this example on on a crosswind runway. One interesting thing that noted about the design of the air airpark is that the crosswind runway or the east-west runway there is designed or it' s laid on a hill. If you ask, as far a pilot' s point of view that' s a very unpopular thing to do. Uh. If you're landing to the west you uh with four thousand foot runway uh you certainly want to be able to get slowed down in that four thousand foot uh runway and uh it' s a downhill slope as you' re runn, landing to the uh west and it' s it' s very steep slope, uh, as far as runways are concerned it' s the steepest slope I 've ever seen on a runway. Uh, so if it would have, you' d have to have some very, if you were landing an aircraft that had, had a landing roll that approached four thousand feet, it would have to be a, a very high wind for for me to personally consider using that east-west runway because of the slope and it' s harder to slow an aircraft down, or anything for a matter of fact, going downhill, once it lands. Just a general rule of thumb, every, uh it should try to land uphill and take off downhill. Some other things that were uh brought up is that uh this NCAR tower they use, evidently they use aircraft to calibrate their instruments , or they fly by the tower, and this site, landfill site being uh two miles away from their tower could be very easy to turn an aircraft inside of the landfill area and not ever overfly it at all and come past this tower from this direction uh at almost any speed. Of course return radius you know, is, is, is dependent on the speed of the aircraft you, you' re flying and the amount of genuine pull when you made the turn. The aircraft I suppose that they would be flying would certainly be flying less than three hundred knots and even at five hundred knots if I was flying an F-4 in this direction, I 'd be able to turn the aircraft inside of there and line up the parallel any kind of heading that I wanted to do to fly past this tower. The best way for them to fly past here and avoid this land site, of course, would be to come from the north, take their readings or whatever they needed to do by this tower and then they would just turn away and, and thus wouldn't the would be uh a lot farther away from the landfill, so I, if they're concerned about overflying the landfill and the bird problem of that. Another thing I 'd like to mention is that uh this area is permeated with a lot of small lakes and when I was uh flying low levels that' s one thing that I would like to watch out for is the migratory birds. They're, this is in the the central flyway here as I understand and uh migratory birds of course, congregate around uh ponds and, and lakes and rivers like that. And when I, whenever I was planning a low level, I would always try to avoid uh any place that I think, any place that I think there would be standing water there because I ' d certainly know that there would be birds at that site, and once they hear the aircraft noise they tend to fly up and uh and, and be a lot easier to to get a bird strike at that point. So I , I think that uh, there' s already plenty of birds around there already and, uh, I can' t see how a landfill that gets covered every night, there' s always activity around it, uh, could attract any more birds than there already are there. That' s my presentation. Do you have any questions? CHAIRMAN CARLSON : Any questions of Mr. Keirnes? Thank you, Mr. Keirnes. LAVERNE NELSON, Uh, I 'm Laverne C. Nelson. I 'm a consulting engineer. I ' ve been in the consulting engineering -36- business in Weld County for some twenty-five years. I 'm a former, former principal of Nelson, Haley, Patterson, and Quirk. I sold my interest in that business and have created my own consulting firm. My experience primarily has been in the waste-handling field; liquid and solid. I hold a degree -- Bachelor of Science degree in Civil Engineering from Colorado State University. I 'm registered to practice engineering in the State of Colorado, Arizona, and Nebraska. I belong to numerous uh associations and uh, with respect to my engineering activities, and uh I would like to uh would like to present information now to complete the record that has been discussed up to this time. I was retained in May of this year by Lynn Keirnes of Colorado Landfill to provide engineering services for the development of a solid waste disposal program for Weld County in accordance with uh discussions that have been brought • before you already today. I did exactly that. I, I prepared what I call an engineering feasibility for the development of landfill in Weld County. It, it is a matter of record with you, uh. This program was developed under the Resources Conservation Recovery Act, public law 94580, the regulations and standards of the Colorado Department of Health, the resolutions and regulations of Weld County. These regulations in short provide for the safe disposal of discarded materials, it regulates the operation and the design and maintenance of solid waste disposal. These regulations further require that every community have access to a sanitary landfill for disposal of solid waste, and at the lowest reasonable cost. The development of this feasibility report outlined a program to meet these requirements . It includes an evaluation of solid waste quantities and characteristics, population projections, defined service areas that should be developed for the handling and disposing of solid waste in a feasible manner. I have a map that you are all familiar with, but for those who have not seen it, I would like to just put it on the stand for a moment. I realize this may be going back a little ways, but I think it' s information that needs to be in the record in order to describe why we are where we are today. I developed in this study four basic service areas for Weld County, which I call the north area -37- which you see the concentric circles here, the central area now being served by the present Greeley-Milliken site, the southeast area being served by a current landfill at at Keenesburg, and a south- west area being served by these concentric circles. In general it provides a disposal site within a reasonable distance, and I call a reasonable distance about twelve miles, for all of the populated, the heavily populated-areas of Weld County. The one area that we are concerned with today is the southwest area and you can see it here in these concentric circles, west of Fort Lupton, southeast of Erie. This map is one uh which is taken from the County tax maps ` is an actual photograph of the area at a scale of one inch equals six hundred feet. You've already been exposed to this, but quickly our landfill site, the closed landfill site immediately adjacent to it, the NCAR tower location, the Town of Erie, Coal Creek and the Erie Air Park, the town limits of Erie are in the heavy black dashed line. Ah. Just quickly I-25 is along this border, Colorado 7 is along this line here, with the various county roads, County Road 7 , County Road 60, 5 shown on the map. In my feasibility study I projected some population ' analysis and I would like to give those to you now. I estimated that in 1980 this particular site could serve a population of 51, 585 people, with a disposal load based on about 4. 7 pounds of solid waste per day per capita of 172 , 280 cubic feet per year. If the landfill is operated on a six-day week basis, that means we' re going to handle in the neighborhood of 552 cubic yards per day, or the equivalent of about 28 twenty-yard compacter trucks. In 1985 we anticipate, due to growth, a loading of 61, 386 people or 685 cubic yards per day based on the same analysis . In 1980 , or 1990 , 72, 734 people, and a loading of some 846 cubic yards per day. The projections are based on the contributions from the communities in Weld County and those nearby the area , giving an estimated percentage of each area or city population contributing to the site. There has been considerable discussion that this may have been designed as a landfill for others than citizens of Weld County. I would like to read into the record the percentage established uh for those communities that are outside of Weld County. _3g_ I utilized as my population data that provided by the Colorado Municipal League which is generally a uh er an accepted uh population information. I said that in in 1980 the population of Lafayette for example is 5600 people and that about 50 percent of that population would contribute to this site, or 2800 people. Broomfield about 18 , 000 people, these are 1980 population I 'm talking about, and I estimated that 20 percent might contribute or 3, 600 people, Louisville, 4 , 000 people with a contribu, contribution of 30 percent or 1,200. Northglenn, 42, 400 people, 121 percent of that population contributing to this site, 5, 300 . Thornton, 29, 600, contributing 12# percent, 3 , 700 . Boulder, 94, 300 and five percent of that would contribute, or 4, 500. As well the inter, the the immediate surrounding rural area, I applied population figures to that, came up with somewhere around • 3 , 540 people, making a total contribution from outside of Weld County to this site of some 25 , 000 people in 1980. Please bear in mind that that is an estimate, but it is based on actual study of population uh figures. You've already heard today that the design at this southwest site conforms to all the requirements of state and county regulations for sanitary disposal. These regulations include the assurance of sufficient volume or space for longevity of the site, site improvement to include access- ibility, dust and drainage control, fencing, debris control, buildings, etc. Incidentally, with respect to access, the EPA does promulgate some guidelines and it includes a statement as follows, and I quote "in general, paved roadways to each site are preferred, although such paving may be unjustified when fewer than fifty units visit an individual site each day? I point out that my estimate was it' d be equivalent of twenty-eight trucks to this site. The other items in these regulations, the control of gas movement which we've provided for in our development standards, adequate soil for cover and fire control measures . To prepare the area to return it to future productive uses either recreational, agricultural, open space, whatever--these matters have all been addressed. Incidentally, the old site that I mentioned to you, the one that has since been closed this year, -39- served a population of some twenty-five to thirty thousand people at the time of closing. The new site adjacent to the old one is estimated to handle the waste from nearly twice as many people. Part of that increase will come from the closure of the Fort Lupton-Brighton site. The site meets the design criteria because it' s isolated, it' s somewhat apart from residences, it' s now considered a wasteland that that could be filled and put to future u, beneficial use. The engineering features location and economics suggest that landfilling would be a good use for the selected site since it cannot be used for purposes requiring buildings because of the subsidence potential of the mined-out area. As. I said it can be open space, recreation, golf courses, agricultural, etc, etc. The operations plan which has been cussed and discussed and has been submitted for review and approval of the Colorado Department of Health. This document includes operational procedures, types of waste, control measures for odors, rodents, insects, dust, wind, birds, wind-blown debris, fire surface runoff, and protection of possible ground, ground water and fencing to provide security. The nearest water well to the site is about four thousand feet away. It' s seven hundred feet deep and reportedly produces around eight gallons per minute -- hardly an amount to produce any perceivable water movement in an un, in a water-bearing strata. We have made extensive soil studies of the site and reported upon the drillings and the testings. The soil characteristics uh included on the site are proven to include an impervious bedrock with clay surface material for sealing and waste cover. The rate of permeability in the soil, for example, in the surface of the bedrock condition is something like two-- hundredths of a foot per year. That' s like a quarter of an inch movement per year. We hardly expect that we will penetrate any water bearing stratas if they are in fact uh as low as seven hundred feet and we 've found none others. The access is good from State Highway 7 and from I-25 via county roads 5 and 6 as can be seen on the map. Some use will probably be made also of paved County Road 8 , but it would be my contention that County Road 6 will carry, will bring in most of the waste from the east. County Road 6 is the -nn- north boundary of the landfill site. Any wastes that come in from the south and the west of course are going to come along Colorado Highway 7 and north along County Road 7 to 6 and into the landfill site. Very little traffic as as I perceive the population evaluations will be generated that would actually move through the Town of Erie. The active fill area will only be about a half to one acre and Lynn Keirnes tells me more like a third of an acre will be open at any one time. We' ll cover daily. No radioactive or hazardous wastes as you know in our development standards will be accepted and incidentally, for lack of anything better, I went to EPA to try to find out what the definition of a hazardous waste is, and it is 'waste other than those considered a community' s normal residential solid waste load' . Wind, wind details are provided from accepted FAA windrose information at the Jefferson County Airport. I want to uh give you some specific wind information at the site. There are no recorded, you should be familiar with uh with the uh supplement number three to the operations plan. I have determined a specific direction for. the NCAR tower from the landfill site. Off of north, that is a specific angle of 36°30 ' . The winds of this property that is leased by NCAR for their tower is 2, 400 feet. Projecting a line from tho, from those two extremities to the center of our landfill site results in a thirteen degree enclosed angle if you understand what I mean. So what we need to do is study the wind conditions within that thirteen degree angle . I have done that in my supplement number three and I read quickly to you that in that thirteen degree directional angle there is no recorded wind in excess of twenty- four miles per hour from the wind rose information that' s available. One tenth of one percent of the time the wind is in that thirteen degree directional angle at a velocity of from twelve to twenty-four miles per hour. Two percent of the time the wind is in that angle at the velocity of from four to twelve miles per hour and twelve percent of the time in the vicinity, the winds are less than four miles per hour and for wind roads purposes at airports are not directionally recorded because they do not affect airport operations . Normally winds are considered calm if they are less than four -Al - miles per hour and they are subject to frequent and very local directional changes, having little or no effect on airport operations. They're also subject to frequent horizontal and vertical directional changes which cause much mixing and dissipation of any airborne matter generated at an identifiable point source. Methane gas will be generated at this site, but was have provided for the use of impervious liners to avoid the movement of this li, uh gas in the soil condition and we've also provided for vent pipes at two hundred foot intervals so that in for depths of fill in excess of ten feet. This gas will be dissipated into the atmosphere. All runoff from the active fill areas will be collected in temporary ponds and evaporated. Other runoff will be diverted from the landfill itself. Dust control will consist of sprinkling and use of road surface materials of minimum dust. A plan is now being developed through the county engineer' s office in conjunction with the County Health Department to provide a particulate matter control in air through occasionally sprinkling, grading, or eventual paving of the county road. We have reviewed to some extent the bird control matters however I do not profess to be an expert in bird control, but EPA has a st, has provided us with published data stating that the best control of bird, or birds is to remove the food supply. According to this EPA published data such denial of food is the most effective bird deterrent. No large bodies of water or bird sanctuaries uh seem to be present on the site or immediately adjacent to it except for the farming operations which we are all familiar with. Uh. I might mention again that the wind information that we have used is a result of the records that have been kept over a number of years to establish wind directions . The reliability of wind data is directly proportional to the length of time that records have been kept. My wind records have been called incorrect before you and before many other people because other data has been presented. The other data is one month of records in September , 1978 , hardly justifiable records upon which to make any parti , draw any particular conclusions about effect of wind. Incidentally, the maximum winds that are shown on that one month data do coincide _a7_ perfectly with the wind data that I used from long period of records. A dust emission permit for operation of landfill has already been recieved from the Air Pollution Control Division of Colorado Department of Health. The enactment of that permit re- quires only the submission of a signed form saying when we will begin operations. As you know development standards have been established and are included with the filed plan. This plan addresses all of the concerns of the health department accorance with their statement that the Designation Act and shall comply with CRS 30-20-104 of the solid, of the state solid waste disposal site and facility act. Commissioners, I have studies extensively the many in influencing aspects regarding the issue before you today. I believe approval of the request is in order to provide needed solid waste disposal facilities in the area for the people of Weld County in an economical and sanitary manner. The southwest Weld County site is a good site for the intended purpose and for all the other reasons discussed in our presentation. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Thank you Mr. Nelson. Any questions of the Board for Mr. Nelson? Mr. Lind, do you have any more presentations? KENNETH LIND: We have one short presentation. Perhaps the Board would want to consider taking a lunch break, uh, prior to that. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Is that all right with the Board if we take a thirty-minute lunch break? COMMISSIONER ROE: The only problem is , I 'm not sure that thirty minutes would be sufficient for everybody. That' s the (Not Audible) COMMISSIONER STEINMARK: How about till one o' clock CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Yeah. One o' clock? Be back here and resume testimony then at one o' clock. Declare a break. -43- TAPE #79 - 147 CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Call the meeting back to order and Commissioner Kirby has been excused. He is attending a funeral this afternoon. I ' ll turn it back over to Mr. Lind. KENNETH LIND: Mr. Chairman as part of the Certificate of Designation procedure as we have already mentioned - part of that include the ability of the applicant to comply with the Health Standards and we do have a few slides to review. The first group of slides, were slides taken last winter of the old operations and I think they' ll will be of great interest to you to showing the old versus th way way the new operation is. LYNN KEIRNES : This is , ah, 21/2 miles south of Windsor. This was taken by the County Planning Department or the County Health, Planning. This is Windsor. This is Brighton, Fort Lupton site, right along Highway 85. This , ah, another picture looking toward Triple G feed lots to the northeast of the Brighton Landfill. This is the Greeley Landfill. This is the Erie Landfill, looking toward Erie Air Park. KENNETH LIND: I ' ll have to use this as a pointer its the only thing we have got available. This is the old landfill and the air park is back in here. LYNN KEIRNES: This is, ah, more of the old Erie landfill. This is our operation between Greeley and Milliken. Ah. These are the new operation slides. The ones you' ve just seen were taken last year. LYNN KEIRNES : About two years ago. This is some of the equipment we are using on the roads to keep the dust down, some fencing material, some of the things that are in stock. That' s approximately 10 , 000 square foot of open area and that ' s the daily cell supplying the needs of 80, 000 plus people . That ' s , ah, the daily pit that we excavate , there ' s our daily cover towards evening, we have it closed covered every evening. There ' s how the cover looks and the site in operation during the day . There is a picture of the daily coverage and then to the right is finished with two-foot of cover. That ' s existing landfill with -44- approximately one-foot of average cover in that picture. There will be additional fill go in there. There' s the type of land that we're converting into landfill, and there' s the type of land on the fore picture that it can be utilized as. There' s an aerial of the Greeley site. There' s one looking southwest. We are located in a rich irrigated farming area. The people that testified, the ones that join us on the south, Dave Hayes, ah, just to the far right or to the east is Art Garcia. This is recovery up at the Eaton site, approximately three-feet of fill in that picture, approximately eight or nine acres. There' s some, a little bit of additional coverage will be ready to be rich farming ground. There' s the type of area that we are operating in up there. There' s the type of land we 're converting to farming land. There' s an aerial of the Eaton area. To your left, center, is the area that we are reclaimed the right in the center is the way we are reclaiming. That' s the Brighton landfill, to the east is Triple G. That' s the Etie landfill looking over the old existing Erie site. Our property line. Can you point that out Ken? KENNETH LIND: I think it' s right about here. LYNN KEIRNES: Looking just a little bit south of due west. These are just random pictures from the northwest corner there will be some from the northeast, these will be some from the southeast corner. Just to show you, generalizing, lay of the area. There' s the northeast corner looking back to the present town of Erie. What is that distance, Vern? VERN NELSON: I believe in that shot officially close to two miles, one and half to two miles, I believe. WILLIAM CARLEY: But isn' t it true at that point that you arewithin half a mile from Erie City limits. Aren' t you within a half mile of the existing city limits right now? LYNN KEIRNES: This was taken from the northeast corner. WILLIAM CARLEY: Oh, I see, but there is , your landfill does get within a half mile of the existing city limits is that right? LYNN KEIRNES: I don' t know you' d have to ask Vern. VERN NELSON: It seems like it' s like it' s closer to three-quarters, it' s less than a mile. That' s right. I ' ll read it off the map for you. Go ahead with your pictures I ' ll get the exact numbers. LYNN KEIRNES: Due west, there' s Erie air park in the background. There are some houses. Can you point those out Ken? VERN NELSON: That distance you are concerned about is three-quarters of a mile from the closest point of the town to the landfill. WILLIAM CARLEY: That' s to the south. Can we go back to the other picture because I live in the house in that picture. Let' s go back one more. LYNN KEIRNES: There WILLIAM CARLEY: Okay. The house in the far left is mine and from my house up to that edge is less than three-quarters of a mile. It' s actually 2, 500 feet from the city limits to the south edge of the proposed landfill site and I can prove that on a U.S.G.S. map surveyed by Robinson Engineering. I just can' t believe that you want to put a landfill a half a mile from a town. LYNN KEIRNES: This is the southwest corner in a radius picture. That would be . . . I ' ll back up one that' s looking toward the Erie Air Park. This is an aerial looking toward Erie air park from the northeast corner of our property. That in the center of the picture is the old Columbine Coal mine. It' s looking East back over the coal mine. That's looking back to the northeast from over our part over towards Erie. That was a half a mile north of Erie and one-fourth mile west. Those are sea gulls following the plow. That' s the Erie, same picture with, you can see the north edge of Erie on the right, left. That ' s some of the results of good management. This shows the relationship of Erie fill to Coal Creek. Think this is a little better picture, Ken. KENNETH LIND: Here is your air field coal Creek, right along the edge lagoon system for the City of Lafayette, then the corner of the landfill up here. -46- LYNN KEIRNES: That' s all of um. KENNETH LIND: Mr. Chairman that basically concludes our presentation. There are some issues which are really not of record at this time as they have not been brought before you so we would ask for some rebuttal time towards the end of the hearing concerning any items that are brought up this point in time. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Does the Board have any questions of the applicants? Okay, we will take, ah, does anybody want to speak in opposition to this Certificate of Designation. Well, which ever one wants to come first. GARY WEST: Chairman Carlson and other Commissioners, I believe most of you recognize me. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Will you state your name? GARY WEST: Itn, Gary West. I 'm circuit rider, city manager for the Town of Erie. I have a BA degree in political science, I have an MPA degree in City Management from the University of Kansas prior to my accepting the position as circuit riding town manager for the Town of Erie through Larimer/Weld Regional Council of Government. I was the City Manager for, in Gunnison, Colorado. In that capacity I operated the only landfill in Gunnison, Hinsdale Counties. So I am familiar with landfill operations and the problems they can, ah, provide. I have with me today, Gayle Packard Seeburger the circuit rider City Planner for the Town of Erie, who will make the principal presentation on behalf of the Erie Town Board. Although the Erie Town Board does disagree with your decision to not reconsider the Special Use Permit, we do understand your hes- itancy and appreciate the opportunity that you have provides us to present new evidence which was not available to the Town of Erie prior to your September 14 , Special Use Permit hearing and the Certificate, the earlier Certificate of Designation hearing on October 24. Our remarks will be confined to those specific subjects that are appropriate under 30-24-104 C.R. S. 1973. A few words of explanation concerning the Erie Town Board ' s apparent waffling on this matter has been brought up by the opponents . It is true that _ A7 _ the Erie Town Board opposed the closing of the old dump adjacent to the proposed Colorado Landfill site and there weie numbers of the Erie Town Board at the hearings for that proposed closing. It is also true that the Erie Town Board as individuals were generally in favor of the new landfill proposed by the Colorado Landfill Inc. However, this was based upon the sketchy information provided to the Erie Planning Commission by Colorado Landfill and the County Planning Department. However, the referral from the Weld County Planning Department was actually considered only by the Erie Planning Commission and not by the Town Board. Due to the insufficient response time permitted before the Weld County Planning Commission held their hearing on the matter September 4. We were permitted seven days in which to respond. We did not have a regular scheduled council meeting during that time. We did have a Planning Commission meeting, we were able to consider it at the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission did respond in a negative manner listing thirteen specific concerns involving appropriateness of the site, health and safety hazards, incompatibility with the Erie Comprehen- sive Plan, adverse impacts on neighboring residential and industrial property. Although the Town of Erie had these reservations about the proposal based on the impression left by the representative of Colorado Landfill and what little information was received at the Planning Commission meeting August 2nd, we did not have, we did not take an active part in the Special Use Permit hearing before the County Planning Commisison and the County Commissioners. I guess we were somewhat lulled to sleep by the representatives that the proposed landfill would place, take the place of the old Erie dump and would be similar in size and scope of service area. The Town Board was rather forceably awakened October 25 when confronted at a Board meeting by over 100 concerned citizens , for although were in attendance for another proposal were extremely vocal and their opposition to the proposed landfill. Now 100 plus voters in the far southwest corner of Weld County may not have much impact upon you here in Greeley. But let me tell you it does have an impact upon the Erie Town Board when they' re faced by approximately -48- a fourth to a third of their voting of the registered voters. It does have a very definite impact upon it and this is what prompted their resolution to the County dated October 25th, requesting the revocation of Colorado Landfill Special Use Permit and asking that the hearing be reopened. It also prompted their authorization for Gayle and myself to further investigate the proposed landfill. The possible adverse impacts on the Town of Erie and to take whatever steps needed to face reconsideration of the Special Use Permit and the Certificate of Site Designation in this matter. We are convinced that there is sufficient new evidence concerning Colorado Landfill, Erie site, which was not available to the Erie Town Board or the Erie Planning Commission prior to the Special Use Permit hearing, September 14th or the first site designation hearing on October 24th. Some of these items concern blatant inaccurate information supplied by Colorado Landfill. For example the windrows for the site. It is not, ah, provide any information at all with regard to the wind direction that will be blowing directly Erie in supplement #3, ah, address only the effect that it will have on the NOAA NCAR site and does not indicate at all any wind from the east will effect the Town of Erie. Whether it' s from the northeast or whether it is from the southeast or whether it' s from directly east. Because Erie extends for a four mile stretch across there, anything coming from the east will effect Erie and that was totally ignored. Secondly, ah, the information concerning the windrows was taken from the Jeffco Airport. That is not adjacent to Erie, it' s not close to Erie, we in Erie do not have ah, access to recording devices that indicate which way the wind blows although the residents of the Town of Erie can tell you that as long as they have lived there, ever since Erie was incorporated in the 1870 ' s the blows from the east, part of the time. We didn' t have the documentation to support that kind of ascertain, the NOAA NCAR site has provided us with that documentation. Ah, their documentation although all that they, ah, originally presented did contain for one month' s data, they have data masses of date from the time the site has been in operation indicating which way -49- the wind blows, not over a one month period, but over the year or so that the NCAR site has been in operation. The, ah, Town of Erie' s also concerned about the potential contamination of Coal Creek with, ah, heard representations of this representation has been addressed. We have not seen the documentation that indicates that they have satisfactorily addressed that problem. That any rain fall falling on that site will not reach, ah, Coal Creek, they do not provide any impondment areas. They do not provide any method of treatment of that water that falls on side. Their primary concern has been the direction of storm run off from the East around the site but not anything that falls directly on the site. We are also concerned about the bird interference with aircraft operating out of the Tri-County Airport. The Town of Erie has sole responsili.lityfor the jurisdiction for that airport. • The County of Weld does not have any jurisdiction over that, over the operations. We have done extensive review of our zoning ordinances and other regulations to provide a safe airport to provide a safe airport for businesses that are being attracted to the Town of Erie increasing our assessed valuation, increasing our ability to provide services for the Town of Erie and subse- quently also this provides increased tax revenue for the County of Weld. We are also concerned about interference with scientific observance at the Boulder Atmospheric Observatory, two miles east of Erie and we are also concerned with the recently reported closures of Adams County landfills and the possible, ah, opening of a major sanitary landfill in northern Adams County, approximately five miles to the southeast of Erie. We feel that, that would provide a very adequate facility within the same general service area that is being proposed for the Erie landfill. I would now like to turn the Town of Erie ' s portion of this hearing over to Gayle who will briefly discuss the Town of Erie' s objections to the granting of this site designation certificate to Colorado Landfill Inc. for a sanitary landfill to the east of Erie . GAYLE PACKARD-SEEBURGER: Chairman Carlson and members of the Board. I ' d like to take this opportunity to thank you for - 50- providing us with an opportunity to voice our reservations about the Erie Landfill site. My name is Gayle Packard Seeburger, Circuit rider planner for the Town of Erie. I received a BA in economics, an MPA with a specialty in resource management, prior to coming to the Larimer/Weld Regional Council of Government in the capacity of Planning Circuit Rider. I worked with Branden Sand and Gravel where I was responsible for natural resources , planning and environment impact statements. Prior to that, I worked with Adams County Planning Department in that capacity I did long range planning and in addition, I assisted with site search for a general aviation airport. So I am familiar with the concerns with safety hazards associated with that type of airport. Before I start my formal presentation, I would like to make a couple of comments about the presentation and the testimony that we have heard here today. Ah, earlier, Colorado Landfill discussed the Erie Comprehensive Plan. I would like all of you to take note. However, that the Comprehensive Plan goals and policy and maps that they referred to was that plan adopted in 1973 in which the town is involved in ligitation because it does not accurately ' reflect the wishes, goals or objectives of the town. The Town of Erie now has a Comprehensive Plan which, whose goals and policies have been adopted and its complete adoption is scheduled for the first week in December. That plan accurately reflects Erie' s development and growth policies for the future and I ' d like to give you that map now. One thing we would like to point out on that map is the area where proposed landfill is to be sited. It' s designated by the town as a green belt area, it' s not slated for any industrial development, also contrary to the as- sertions of Colorado Landfill , the area immediately west of that site is designated for high density residential use, the dwelling unit of 17 units per acre . It is not these units are not located in the subsidence areas which we have delineated on the map and where no development will take place. To start our presentation I ' d like to say that the Colorado Revised Statute 30/20/104 mandates that several specific factors be considered at a Certificate of -51- Designation hearing . Many of these factors are of direct concern to the Town of Erie since consideration of these factors show that the siting of this landfill in its proposed location will adversely affect the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. The first factor consider is the, quote, that the solid waste disposal site and facility will have on the surrounding property uses values, the wind and climatic uses" , end quotes. Erie has reviewed the proposed landfill site from this perspective. Our review shows that the landfill, if approved, will: 1. severly impede or prevent economic development; 2 . depreciate undeveloped residential land values; 3 . depreciate undeveloped industrial land values; 4. that existing housing will depreciate in value; 5. that existing commercial and industrial sites will depreciate in value . The surroundingarea, excluding undeveloped agricultural lands, contains property and assets valued approximately 72 million dollars. This land has experienced rapid development within the last two preceeding years. Erie, through its comprehensive plan and other regulatory mechanism, has planned and promoted this development. What we did we put together a very brief financial chart of current and projected financial graath in the Town of Erie on what we would like to explain is the growth that Erie has recently undergone and that it is dependent upon successful use of that airport. In the year 1977 , Erie had an assessed value of 1 . 1 million dollars, at that point we started development of our airport and surrounding adjacent subdivision but in 1979 we had an assessed value of 1 . 9 million dollars. So we have almost doubled our tax base. In 1981 and we have broken it down if you would like to see it at a later date, based on the number of lots that are being sold to date in the subdivision, the number of houses now under construction, we anticipate that without the landfill Erie will have an assessed valuation of 5 million dollars. However, we also projected that if we have the landfill in there that the lots that are now unsold and that is 50% of the lots currently there , many of these will not be able to marketed and we could drop in our assessed It is also Erie' s position that the landfill' s impact will be confined not only to the airpark but will adversely impact the Town' s financial resources. This and other impacts will then combine to negatively affect the general health, safety and welfare of Erie residents. Briefly, I 'm going to give to you a few examples that illustrate and are indicative of the negative impacts that will accompany this landfill siting: The first concern addresses the large bird population that the landfill will attract. It will create a necessary, dangerous aircraft hazard problems. Furthermore, damage as a result of a bird strike would not be necessarily be confined to the pilot and plane but could cause damage to persons and property in Erie itself. Ah, I won' t go into detail as more testimony be presented on this topic by other parties. However, this aspect of the problem created by the landfill is of direct interest to Erie since it will introduce an unacceptable safety risk that will impact the entire town. Next thing I 'd like to address is how the landfill will adversely affect the general welfare of Erie by artifically reducing property values. This will occur in original Erie as well as in the presently developing areas. By way of example the following is an analysis of the landfill' s impact on the Erie Air Park subdivision: This subdivision contains 196 lots . Sixty have been sold and seven solar homes have been erected to date with sixteen more under construction. Each home is located on a five acre lot and the homes range in value from $125, 000 to $200, 000 dollars. Both the town and developer anticipate that the subdivision will be built out by 1981. The siting of the landfill in its proposed location will prevent this since its introduction will significantly modify the conditions under which the development of this subdivision must take Place. First, economic theories as well as real estate principles substain Erie ' s contention that residences located in close proximity to a landfill decrease in value, as well as the un- developed land. Therefore , both lots and homes will depreciate in value while, simultaneously , becoming more difficult to market. Second , this obstacle, when coupled with the unique characteristics of the subdivision, raises the issue of whether the subdivision can -54- be developed at all. This is because there are a number of relationships that connect the successful development of the subdivision with the disapproval of the proposed landfill. First, the character of the subdivision and, therefore, its potential market is unique. The subdivision is oriented towards people who are interested in general aviation, who own aircraft, and who need frequent access to an airstrip. Individuals withinthis potential pool of buyers are knowledgable about aviation safety. They will know about the safety hazards associated with landfills and they will be aware of F.A.A. regulations addressing those hazards. With this information, the Erie Air Park would not be an optimal area in which to locate. Second, this is further compounded by reducing the pool of potential buyers to those that are environmentally oriented and willing to integrate solar systems into their building designs . This means that the potential residents will be both interested in aviation and environmentally sensitive to their surroundings . With the information it is then logical to assume that the subdivision residents will require access to safe flying facilities an environment which has not been degraded by ' excessive odors, litter, noise, fugitive dust, traffic congestion and negative visual impacts. The landfill, if approved, will create these very conditions. It will prevent the successful completion of the subdivision. In turn, this will mean that Erie will experience a decline in its tax base where a substantial increase was projected. In addition, the partial development of this subdivision will generate a demand for services disproportionate to the revenue generated by the development itself. The economic loss that will result will be severe. It will result in the reduction of services throughout the town and constitute a severe drain on Erie ' s financial resources . It will directly affect the general welfare of Erie residents. Next example is that the proposed landfill would , if approved, provide an insurmountable obstacle to future expansion and development of airport facilities . Any extensive improvements to the existing airport would involve the use of F A.A. funds . Since this landfill will be approximately 5000 feet from the airstrip, and since F. B.A. regulations prohibit -55- them within a distance of 10, 000 feet, Erie Air Park will be ineligible for federal funding. This will have a direct affect both on Erie and the region. Erie, again, will lose a significant amount of revenue. The region will lose a needed addition to its limited number of general aviation airports. Currently, C.O.G. studies show that the present existing air parks are at or above capacity. Statistics show that there is a critical need to expand the existing airport facilities as well as to construct new airports, if the Denver region is to be able to meet its projected demands. Erie Air Park, because of its size and location, is a vital component of this air network. Any land use which creates a safety problem and reduces the efficient functioning of this air park is unacceptable and jeopardizes regional as well as local goals and objectives. With reference to local concerns, in addition to those just mentioned, the airport currently has the capacity to accommodate 130 tiedowns, 116 of which are in use. The safety hazards emanating from this landill will discourage current aircraft owners from maintaining their craft at this site as well as discouraging prospective tiedowns from locating in the air park. This will have a direct financial impact on the airpark operations and an impact on general welfare concerns raised earlier. The next example is on the impact of the landfill on existing industry and projected industrial growth and development. We find it unacceptable. In the instance of existing industry, Erie believes that the landfill will prevent existing industry to efficiently operate. In the latter instance, Erie believes that it will be unable to attract the type of industry it desires. Currently, there are two major industries in our industrial area. The first business, Castle Corporation, is a cabinet manufacturing company with property and buildings totaling $850 ,000 . Its an environmentally oriented firm, originally selected the Erie site for its rural atmosphere , the site orientation itself and environmental amenities necessary for it to successfully implement and promote a number of innovative programs it has undertaken. The success of these program is dependent, in part, on maintaining a clean and aesthetically pleasing environ- ment. To assist Castle Corporation in their endeavor the Town of -56- Erie has issued Revenue Bonds in behalf of Castle Corporation. The building is oriented to take advantage of wind and climatic conditions for heating particularly susceptible to odors , noise, and litter carried from the landfill site to the factory. Erie through past actions has recognized the validity of these concerns and has denied rezoning and special use proposals which would have created these very impacts. The second industry, Aero Systems , Inc. , have a property and buildings investment of $350 , 000 dollars and equip- ment in excess of 1.5 million dollars. They utilitze a jet in the course of their business operations. This business will-be impacted in a manner similar to Castle Corp. but, in addition, the landfill will alsc create a safety hazard that will interfere with their business operation. Erie emphasizes that these industries , the adjacent airpark, and subdivision are the keystone to Erie ' s future development plans. The landfill will prevent the implementation of those plans. All of the items just discussed illustrate specific instances of how Erie will be adversely impacted by this proposal. The proposed landfill will affect the town in this manner because of the activities that accompany and are intrinisic to the maintenance and operation of the landfill. These activities will create visual, noise and odor pollution, litter, fugitive dust traffic congestion, and in this instance, a safety hazard created by the large bird populations attracted to landfills. Briefly, I ' d like to dicuss separately how these adverse impacts will affect the town. As stated earlier, the visual impact of this operation on the Town of Erie will be substantial. The elevation between the site and town is almost negligible with the homes situated in Erie airpark subdivision since they tend to be sited on the tops of knolls whenever possible being slightly higher than that of the landfill. This means that the closest residential sites are either level with or higher than the proposed landfill site. Therefore, mitigation measures such as solid screen fencing, landscaping etc. , can only be minimally effective and that the visual impact will be severe . Residents will daily view heavy earth moving equipment, the dust created by earth movement, the -57- litter and trash in the dump itself , the litter and trash blown outside of the site into Erie, and the traffic generated the activity itself. These items cannot be concealed. They are not visually or aesthetically pleasing, they create health and safety problems, and will discourage prospective residents from residing in Erie. It is Erie ' s position that the locating of a landfill within 3000 feet of a subdivision will create a sufficient visual impact to discourage any prudent buyer from investing the approximately 200, 000 dollars necessary to erect a home at this location. The next item of concern is the noise that will emanate from the landfill. It is anticipated that, given the nature of landfills and the fact that the land will frequently blow into Erie, that residents of Erie will be subjected to the continuous drone of heavy equipment as well as the noise caused by the additional traffic going to and from the site. Erie believes that some of this traffic will use Erie streets . This means that landfill traffic will pass residential areas and, in particular, Erie schools. This will create an unacceptable level of noise within the town as well as unacceptable levels immediately adjacent to Erie. Erie also anticipates that litter caused by trash escaping from packers, trucks and cars will create a substantial problem and contribute to the visual pollution along our streets and highways. However, the problem of debris and litter blowing from the landfill into the Town will constitute an even more serious aspect of this problem for the Town of Erie . Currently, mitigation plans propose to gather blowing trash upon the subsidence of high wind periods7 this is to include trash off site, if it originated from the landfill. The difficulties with this mitigation procedure are several. First, no information as to the number of employees available for this task is provided, no specific conditions under which this condition will exist is delineated, and it is not clear how these trash removers will be able to conclusively determine the origin of trash now located off site. Since the wind frequently blows into Erie, Erie anticipates that it will be the recipient of a substantial amount of trash, litter and debris . The mitigation measures proposed by Colorado Landfill Inc . cannot be successful _Sq_ for more than a very short distance from its site. Therefore, this will create an additional problem for the Town. Erie lacks the financial resources and manpower to deal with this problem and if the landfill is approved, it will create a continuous problem for the Town. It will, in addition to health concerns, create a poor visual image of the Town and contribute to a general decline in property values. Odors emanating from the site are also of concern. Landfills generate, among other things, methane. . The unpleasant odors which will be carried into the Town when certain wind conditions prevail are completely unacceptable. Erie realizes that procedures will be instituted to reduce, somewhat the amount of methane that will be generated. However, these procedures cannot completely eliminate this problem and the problem remains, therefore, a serious one. Following upon a different aspect of the same concern, Erie notes that the presence of these unpleasant odors also means the presence of volatile gases. This greatly increases the probability of fire. It is our understanding that the Dacono Fire District reviewed this proposal and found that it posed no difficulty in servicing the activity. Erie takes partial exception to that assessment. The Dacono Fire District per se' won' t be presented with any difficulties . This, however, is because the Erie Volunteer Fire Department is responsible for this particular site. Erie does not have the manpower or resources necessary to take on this responsibility. Therefore, the landfill will further threaten the community' s welfare and safety. Even more obliquely, the gases generated from this landfill have the potential of interfering with N.O.A.A. test and experiments that are designed to determine the composition of Denver' s Brown Cloud and ultimately improve the air pollution in public health. Any activity jeopardizing these efforts also threatens the health of Erie residents. Fugitive dust is another factor which will adversely impact the Town of Erie. The operation of this site will require that large amounts of earth be moved on a daily basis. This will generate large amounts of fugitive dust which will not be reduced by mitigation efforts. It is our understanding that Colorado Landfill Inc . can obtain the necessary emission permits to conduct this activity but we point out that this permit is based, in part, upon shifting and increasing through administrative procedures, the location of where it will be permissible for pollution to take place. Therefore, Erie will be subject to additional pollution which is environmentally objection- able and could create additional safety hazards for the air park. it also, in line with the previous concerns noted that the main road used by the landfill will not be paved and create large amounts of fugitive dust. This certainly is going to impact more greatly on N.C.A R. facilities and we are going to reserve further comment since they will be discussing that situation. Erie anticipates that in addition to the previously voiced concerns, that unacceptable levels of traffic will result from this landfill. The projected volumes, when correlated to the number of available sites elsewhere appears to us to be abnormally low. And I 'd like at this time, I 'd like to comment on the figures used by Colorado Landfill Inc. In terms of the projected population we find them somewhat questionable, but we find no basis for the projection on what percentages of what towns will be using this particular land site facility, there seems to be no basis in fact other than just a very rough guess. In addition we see no basis for the assumption that a population of 25, 000 had been used in the old Erie landfill site and we have seen no substantial, ah, statistics supporting this conclusion on the part of Colorado Landfill Inc. However, even if we 're to grant that the figures supplied are correct, when the access to the site is examined it is apparent that the road system is completely inadequate to handle the proposed traffic. Unpaved roads are completely unsuitable and will contribute to the already present fugitive dust problem. Road maintenance efforts are inadequate and no detailed provisions for heavv, and we believe likely, increases in traffic volume have been made. Furthermore , if this is a twenty year project, it appears likely that Erie will receive a proportionately larger increase of traffic using its streets and that this will create an additional financial burden for the town. All of the preceeding information that has been -60- provided and has confined itself to the immediate and intermediate impacts of this landfill has confined itself to the immediate and intermediate impacts of this landfill will create. In addition to those concerns, long term impacts should also be .considered. Erie considers these impacts more potentially serious than the short term impacts previously discussed. These concerns will be addressed within the context of 30-20-104 (3) C .R.S. that states, quote, "The Board of County Commissioners shall require that the report which shall be submitted by the applicant . . . be reviewed and a recommendation as to approval or disapproval made by the department and shall he satisfied that the proposed solid wastes disposal site and facility conforms to the comprehensive plan, if any. " Weld County has a Comprehensive Plan. That plan in numerous instances emphasizes its relationship to small towns and Weld County' s commitment to assist the towns in implementing and actualizing their planning goals and objectives. The comprehensive plans of the small towns in Weld County function, in effect, as an extension of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. In a review of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan, as well as the Erie Comprehensive Plan, Erie has found that the proposed land use activity is in incompatible with the stated goals and objectives of both documents . In the following discussion, Erie will first discuss where and how this incompatibility occurs within the Weld County plan and how this, in turn, relates to the Erie Comprehensive Plan. From this discussion it should be apparent that the two planning documents are compatible with one another and that both show the proposed land use to be incompatible with the County and Town' s stated goals and objectives. The initial chapter of the Weld County Comprehensive plan which discussed, among other things , the nature of the plan, clearly states that: 1 . urbanization can best be served by existing municipalities ! 2 . urban development will inevitably occur and that this Comprehensive Plan outlines a course of action which assures urban growth in accordance with the concepts and desires of each existing municipality; 3 . the goal is to achieve a, quote , "controlled expansion of our existing munici- palities into well planned, coherent communities that blend into -61- and complement the surrounding agricultural environment" , end quote. Erie supports all of these concepts . It supports the idea that urbanization is best served by existing municipalities. However , if this is to occur, land uses which would prevent towns from accommodating this urbanization must be prohibited. The proposed landfill is a use that is not compatible with adjacent urbanization. Erie also supports Weld County' s policy which promotes growth in accordance with the concepts and desires of each municipality. Erie ' s concepts and desires for future growth and development are stated in the Erie Comprehensive Plan. Briefly, the plan anticipates that the Town will accommodate a population of approx- imately 10, 000, as well as a proportionate share of commercial and industrial activities. Accordingly, the Plan delineates the areas that are to accommodate these activities. In many instances, development has already commenced. The direction selected for future expansion and development, as well as for specific land uses were chosen on the basis of many considerations . Some of these are environmental constraints that is subsidence areas, ridge lines, flood plains. There are financial considerations such as the tax base, the ability to provide services and finally other socio-economic concerns. In addition, the Erie Comprehensive Plan assumes the support of Weld County in implementing and realizing this plan. This , logically, would include active involvement on the part of Weld County to insure the land uses incompatible with the Erie Plan, but outside its jurisdictional boundaries did not threaten, impede or prevent the Plan' s successful implementation. The landfill will clearly affect the successful implementation of the Comprehensive Plan and this will be discussed in more depth at a later point. The next goal stated in the Weld County Comprehensive Plan is to achieve planned communities which complement the surrounding agricultural environment. This too is supported by Erie and complements the goals just discussed. The Erie Plan anticipates , on the basis of this policy that Weld County will attempt to maintain this agricultural environment. The proposed landfill will drastically -62- alter this environment. Weld County' s Plan tacitly acknowledges this when in discussing the placement of this and similar uses it permits .them to locate in agricultural areas because of their basic incompatibility with other urban uses that .is not because of their compatibility with agricultural uses. This agricultural environment will be altered in the following ways . The landfill will attract large numbers of vehicles to the area, it will substantially contribute to noise, odor and visual pollution. It will create litter and road maintenance problems, and it will increase the pressure to convert adjacent agricultural land into land that may be used for other marginal industrial enterprises that are also incompatible with agricultural and residential uses. A waste disposal site cannot be anticipated or expected to locate into an agricultural environment adjacent or within three thousand feet of a rapidly developing town under the policies as stated in the Weld County Plan. It is not possible for it to blend in and complement the urban and agricultural uses. It will function as a definite impediment to the implementation of County and Town planning efforts. The second chapter of the Weld Plan establishes the foundation from which to make land use decisions. Basically, the plan advocates growth around existing towns in order to preserve agricultural land, and to promote the efficient use of urban land. To accomplish this, the Plan recommends that each Town prepare a Comprehensive Plan which, quote, "will be a major reference document for planned growth in Weld County" , end quote, i.e. , a supple- ment or adjunct to the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. Erie has compiled with this request. The proposed landfill, however, will be within 3000 feet of Erie and will prevent the implementation of Erie' s Comprehensive Plan. As previously stated in the discussion of short and intermediate impacts, Erie will experience, as a result of this landfill, impacts that will continue to adversely affect the Town' s development and which will prevent the successful implementation of the Plan. Specifically, the following goals , objectives, and policies represent and are indicative of the conflicts that exist between the landfill and the Erie Comprehensive -63- Plan. Our first goal of relevance is to assure that residential areas within the community are desirable places to live and that residential neighborhoods should be protected from any land use activity involving an excessive level of noise, pollution or traffic volume. The Erie future land use map has designed the land immediately west of the landfill for high density, 17 dwelling units per acre, residential use. A preliminary sketch plan has been reviewed and approved by the Erie Board of Trustees. The landfill would create an obstacle which could prevent the planned development from progressing. This landfill, which is regional in nature is being proposed for siting adjacent to an area designed for intensive residential development. The noise, odor and visual pollution accompanying these sites and all of the earlier discussed impacts make it an unacceptable land use at this site and make it one of the activities from which residential areas should be protected. Next relevant goal is to provide an environment which will attract a variety of new industries in keeping with the desired character of Erie. On that, the Erie community should encourage location of only those industries which will not create pollution or detract from the area's environmental amenities but which will be a financial asset to the community. The southern one-third of Erie is oriented around Erie Air Park and is designed to accommodate airport related activities and industries . The town has gone to great pains to promulgate regulations to protect the integrity of this airport and to make it conducive for business people to locate their industries and business around the airport utilizing the airport facilities. It is anticipated that these industries will make a significant contribution to the Town ' s tax base. The landfill will significantly impede or prohibit such development. First, it will prevent industries using turbo powered aircraft from locating on these sites. Second, it will create safety hazards that will discourage operators of props from locating in our in- dustrial areas . Third, the landfill will detract from the area ' s environmental amenities and fourth it will create a financial liability for the town. The next pertinent goal is to accommodate community growth in a manner which is in harmony with the area ' s - a- natural and man-made environment. In new development, priority consideration should be given to environmental concerns and that the noise and crash hazard impacts should be taken into consider- ation in the planning and development of all lands within at least one mile of Erie. Community growth will not be facilitated by the placement of this landfill in its proposed location. Instead, the landfill will strike a discordant note with respect to both the natural and man-made environment. The landfill substantially conflicts with the Plan' s directive to give, quote, "priority consideration to environmental concerns" , end quote. An analysis of this plan shows that a serious disruption to the environment will result and that mitigation measures cannot adequately reduce the environmental impact that will result from this activity. Some of these impacts such as noise, dust, visual and traffic pollution have already been discussed. In addition, more potentially serious impacts also exist. Erie, in particular is concerned about the possible contamination of Coal Creek, the contamination of the site itself and, finally the impact that this would have on the health, safety and welfare of Erie residents. Since Erie has not had access to the Colorado Department of Health' s recommendation and assess- ment of these concerns, it is not possible to comment in further detail at this time. However, there are two major concerns that we understand that the Health Department will not address but which the Town, given its proximity to the site, believes should be addressed. Specifically, Erie is concerned about the following: Water runoff. It is our understanding that Colorado Landfill Inc . will not be required to provide a plan for water runoff that is , water falling on the landfill, running through dumped materials and off the site into Coal Creek. We believe that this aspect of the plan cannot be ignored. Intensive , short duration rainfalls have occurred in this area and any possible contamination of our water resources is unacceptable and poses a threat to public and environmental health. Second area is carinogenic substances . In connection with the above , Erie is concerned that carcinogenic and other environmentally hazardous materials will inadvertentally -65- enter the site in packer loads, subsequently affecting citizen health. Plans to monitor the type of material disposed are necess- ary to evaluate the effectiveness of each individual mitigation plan and to also determine or quantify the number of mitigation measures to be employed. Once this is accomplished, it should not be assumed that the project should proceed. Instead the project should be examined within the context that appraises the overall effectiveness of mitigation measures working in conjunction with one another and assesses realistically the over all impact the landfill will have on the environment. What has occurred to date, is the review of isolated environmental concerns and the promulagation of a series of plans to address specific problems. No integrated approach has been utilized and, because of this, no comprehensive assessment of the impact of this activity has been made and has not been presented to Weld County. From the limited information available to Erie, that is Erie is aware of the mitigation plans on bird hazards, they know that are not very good. Erie also knows the economic impact that this will have on the airport from miscellaneous information of this nature. It appears to Erie that a critical review of this scope in magnitude would find that the landfill is not acceptable at the proposed location and that mitigation measure could not effectively overcome the negative impacts that it will create. With reference to the Erie policy which directs the town and other agencies to consider noise and crash hazards impacts within a one mile radius of Erie, it is Erie ' s position that this concern has not been adequately addressed. Briefly, the location proposed for this landfill will substantially increase the crash hazard associated with flying and is, from this perspective, completely unacceptable. Since other interested parties will address this concern in more detail, Erie will not do so at this time but will , instead, state that agencies at the federal, state, regional and local levels supports this contention. The next concern or goal that Erie is going to encourage new development to be undertaken in such a way that it is financially, socially, and visually beneficial -66- to the Erie community and to take steps to encourage Boulder and Weld Counties to continue and strengthen their policies aimed at not allowing urban type development to occur outside their unincorporated boundaries and preserving agricultural activities. Since these items have been discussed elsewhere , Erie reiterates its position that no financial, social or visual benefit will result from this activity. Again we urge you to enforce your policies that deal with the preservation of agricultural lands adjacent to existing towns. The four items just discussed represent the more extreme areas of conflict when the compatibility of the proposed landfill with the Comprehensive Plans are discussed and analyzed. To summarize, however, these areas constitute only the major areas of conflict, other goals, policies, and objectives are also at variance with this proposal and the landfill is simply incompatible with the comprehensive plans of both Erie and Weld County. It would, if approved, prevent the successful implementation of these plans . This is further emphasized in the land use policies and statements adopted by Weld County. A significant part of the Weld County Comprehensive plan contains a series of policy statements that are aimed at achieving planned growth. These policies uniformly deal with resource management and have a direct bearing on the landfill issue since they can constitute the criteria that should guide the decision making process . In the policy section addressing agriculture, two policies are relevant to the land use activity under discussion, one states that in order to minimize conflicting land uses , industrial development will be encouraged to locate adjacent to existing towns in accordance with their comprehensive plans where developments desire to locate when developments desire to locate elsewhere, they will be required to justify their development with a detailed clan accompanied by economic and environmental impact statement. From this statement Erie assumes that Weld County does not consider the proposal to be an adjacent activity since it has tentitively approved contrary to the Erie Comprehensive Plan deciding of this plant. Erie disagrees with this interpretation but also points out that if this inter- -67- pretation is correct, Colorado Landfill Inc. should be required to undertake the environmental and economic impact statements as specified in this policy. This has not yet been required. The next pertinent policy statements are contained in your section directed at industrial development. This section states, quote "zoning for industrial use in areas outside of planning areas of towns shall be encouraged only for low employee , agriculturally related, or other industries that can not reasonably be located in planning areas" , end quote. Erie agrees that a landfill reason- ably constitutes one of these other industries. However, Erie believes that this site is within its planning area and that it is not appropriate to locate such a use within this area. The environmental policy section contained in your comprehensive plan also has one section relevant to the proposed landfill. It states that, quote "all proposed changes in land use will be supported by an environmental impact statement prepared by recognized experts" , end quote. Erie believes that an E.I .S . should be required and that it should comply with the proposed federal regulations addressing this issue. In the policy section regarding Onen Space, two policy statements are relevant. These two statements direct Weld County to protect lands defined as suitable open space areas and to maintain the integrity and soundness of existing communities by encouraging permanent open space greenbelts around each town. The area selected for the landfill meets Weld County' s criteria for open space and is located in an area which now serves as a greenbelt function for the town of Erie. If Erie is to maintain its unique community identity this will be accomplished, in part, through the isolation of the community by the creation and maintenance of agricultural greenbelts. The placement of this landfill within this area is a serious intrusion upon the integrity of the greenbelt and will discourage its continued existence . This , in turn, will create pressure to encourage other development detrimental to the sound development of Erie . The final policy statement that Erie will comment on states that , quote "regionalization of service and facilities shall be opposed if it will lead to growth which is not compatible with -FR- the desires of the towns involved" , end quote . As discussed earlier, this incompatible growth will occur. The landfill does constitute a regional activity. Therefore Erie requests that this application be denied. Erie, acknowledging -the necessity and difficulty in obtaining sites for regional landfills , believes, however, that there are other, more favorable locations for this activity. Erie is presently aware of a site within five miles of the proposed location and without the obstacles presented in this particular site. Erie maintains that the availability of this site materially changes the conditions under which this application has been presented and it urges Weld County to work with Erie to find a more acceptable alternative. In conclusion, Erie recognizes the validity and importance of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan, understands the importance that it be successfully implemented and is confident that on the basis of information submitted to you, that you will find the proposal to adversely affect surrounding land values, impede or prevent successful development in the Town of Erie and to be incompatible with the stated goals and objectives contained in the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. On the basis on this information, the Town of Erie urges Weld County to deny Colorado Landfill Inc . ' s request that it be issued a Certificate of Designation. Thank you. We will answer any questions that you have. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Are there any questions of the Board? COMMISSIONER ROE: Uh. Mr. Chairman, I have three questions for the representatives from Erie . It seems that we have dispute over what your comprehensive plan says at this point. The people from Colorado Landfill quoted from a plan that was adopted in 1973 . Has that plan been rescinded or amended to show (Not Audible) GAYLE PACKARD-SEEBURGER: Uh. COMMISSIONER ROE: Include the map GAYLE PACKARD-SEEBURGER: We are in the process , for the last year of going through the hearing process on the adoption of this new plan. The Town of Erie has adopted in part the plan I gave you today and the goals and objectives that I quoted you. There is a remaining area that has to be resolved within the Town _rn_ of Erie before the complete town is, before the complete plan is adopted. That area of controversy involves some land contained in Boulder County on the west wide of the town that isn' t impacted by the uh proposed landfill site and regards the delineation of the subsidence areas which the developer uh has contended are too large. COMMISSIONER ROE : Okay. Then I think what you' re telling me is that the land that we are talking about today in the Erie Comprehensive Plan, that your town plan has been amended to reflect what you showed us today GAYLE PACKARD-SEEBURGER: Yes COMMISSIONER ROE: and the 1973 plan is no longer valid. GAYLE PACKARD-SEEBURGER: Right. COMMISSIONER ROE: All right. GAYLE PACKARD-SEEBURGER: And I believe your planning department also has a copy of this. COMMISSIONER ROE : One of the things that we have talked about is the uh both the environmental and the economic impact that a landfill would have on the Erie Air Park and Erie Sub and sub uh Air Park Subdivision. And, is it not true, that when Erie approved the airport and the airpark there was landfill there? GAYLE PACKARD-SEEBURGER: Uh. I think the size and scope of the landfill was radically different. First of all, the distance was substantially further away. It, it' s how, how many Eight thousand, an additional three thousand. That was eight thousand feet away. It was confined to twenty acres. It was a local landfill intended for local use . This uh, in terms of the FAA circulars and regulations makes a substantial difference on the impact of the landfills that we are talking about. It, it, it' s hardly, it' s hardly, uh, you' re hardly able to compare the magnitude of a hundred and sixty acre landfill site with a twenty acre site. GARY WEST : In addition to that, uh, the principal user of turbojet aircraft, which would be operating out of the Erie Airpark did not uh move into his facility until after the old Erie landfill was closed by the county in June . He uh did not -70- complete his facility until I believe it was July or August and when she moved in. We have since uh had some additional uh persons, I believe that you have a letter uh that you received or accepted today uh from Turbo Flight, Inc. which is another uh business venture that is interested in going into Erie Air Park, and which uh one of their principal functions will be to provide condominium-type uh hangar facilities for uh various businesses that will be located down in that area, for both uh prop-type airplanes and also turbojet airplanes. COMMISSIONER ROE : At this point I might add also for the record that Tuesday afternoon I received a call from a spokesman from FAA in Washington and he said that he would try to get a letter here that as far as I know it hasn' t uh arrived yet. We discussed this issue. He said that regardless of the past circumstances, that FAA wanted to go on record as opposing the, the landfill. He did, however, say that and and he was telling me, well, the county was wrong for allowing the airport to go there with a landfill existing and I informed him that Weld County had nothing to do with it. So FAA says that it was a land use problem in allowing the airport there in the first place. But he said since the airport' s there they will not change their mind--they are in opposition to the landfill. My last question concerns the noise and you know I, I 'm not sure of the traffic that' s going to to through Erie, perhaps the traffic may increase and there may be a noise impact. I am concerned that this landfill that' s going to be a mile away is going to have such a noise impact when you' re project- ing the use of the Erie Air Park which is in the city limits of Erie to have jet aircraft and I know it' s been some twenty-two years since I 've been around jet aircraft, but they made a lot of noise twenty-two years ago. GAYLE PACKARD-SEEBURGER: Yeah. We would partially agree with that, but I think the one consideration we do have , because this is a very long term project. We have new transportation plans made and thoroughfare plans. We have to go under the assumption that there, it ' s going to be better access to that landfill than there now presently is and a lot of that is going to go through -,1 - our elementary school. COMMISSIONER ROE: But the noise. I don' t believe • GAYLE PACKARD-SEEBURGER: That' s , that' s COMMISSIONER ROE : I don' t believe really is an issue. If you're going to have jet aircraft operating on your air park. GARY WEST: The noise issue, I believe, is, has been addressed in our uh various zoning requirements and subdivision regulations and which we do attempt to uh regulate uh the placement of certain public facilities such as schools outside of landing approaches. We are talking about uh certain kinds of, of other uses that will be outside of the landing approaches so that uh they will not have as as severe a direct impact uh from the noise. The concern that we have with the landfill operation is that this will be an operation uh operating from I believe six o' clock in the morning until six o'clock in the evening, six days a week, that there will be continual kind of noise problem. If uh they were to uh use County Road 8 coming from the west, they will go directly past both grade school and the high school, they will go right through the downtown area, and uh, this does concern us. When we talk about the uh, the twenty-eight packer trucks, uh, the Colorado Landfill, Inc. are projecting will be using this site in 1980, uh this does not take into consideration the large number of other vehicles, the private uh cars, the private trucks, pickups, other types of facil, of vehicles which will also be using that site. Uh, they are speaking only of the twenty-eight packer trucks. Uh, the residential-type packer trucks and industrial packer trucks that you normally see uh, uh, on your city streests . But they are not considering the addition, uh, vehicular traffic that, that may go to this site. In fact, they have uh not been able to present any kind of uh even guesstimates as to how many additional vehi- cular trips per day that we' re talking about. And this does concern us. CHAIRMAN CARLSON : Any other questions of the Board? -72- UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER FROM AUDIENCE: A question for Mr. Roe there. On these jete. . . ( (Not Audible) We are trying to enforce what is called the part 36 federal regulations, which would provide for a decibel level of aircraft noise (Not Audible) . - CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Any other questions of the Board? Well after that fourteen-page testimony of Gayle' s, I 'm going to have to ask that we not be repetition, or, er, in our testi- mony. Uh she repeated herself several times in that and if that continues I 'm going to have to limit the amount of time that' s taken, because that was a long fourteen page testimony. Uh, if there' s no other questions of Erie, we ' ll have somebody else then from the opposition side. GARY WEST: Thank you very much, Chairman Carlson, CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Thank you. WILLIAM CARLEY: Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen of the commission, my name is William J. Carley. I 'm a resident of Erie, Colorado and Weld County, and president of a Colorado corporation based at Tri-County Airport. Like the former aviation expert who testified, my undergraduate training is also in aero- nautical engineering. I 've been in commercial aviation since 1965, I hold federal aviation regulations which follow. I have a commercial multi-engine instrument rating certificate 163 . 505 issued in 1965. I have an airline transport pilot rating 163 . 7505 issued 1970 . I am an FAA-certified flight instructor, issued 1965 for both airplane and instrument. I 'm also type-rated in a Cessna Citation. In addition Cessna Citation type-rating, I 'm type-rated in a Lear jet, Lockheed T-33 , military jet trainer. So I have similar experience to Mr. Keirnes in many areas. In addition to my pilot ratings, I hold a Federal Aviation Agency air-frame and power plants mechanics rating certificate 207 . 3748 issued in 1971. In addition to that, I have Federal Aviation, Federal Aviation Agency inspection authorization issued in 1974 . Since 1968 I have been employed as an environmental research pilot, specializing in cloud physics and air quality research. In addition to that I have been associated with Part 36 instrument- ation programs that deal entirely with noise pollution as spoke to by Mr. Pierce. I ' ll get back to that in a minute, but he is quite correct, in that part 36 will keep noise lower than I think what your scrapers and graders will at the -proposed site. Unfortunately, both Colorado Landfill' s attorney and myself have been badly misquoted in a local newspaper. I will read from that newspaper. This is September 15 , 1979 , and it states, 'The new dump, to be located next to the old Erie landfill site that was closed in June will serve all of southwest Weld County and the northern part of Denver metropolitan area, according to Kenneth Lind, attorney for the permit applicant, Colorado Landfill, Inc. ' This was refuted in testimony by Vern Nelson at the Colorado Land use Commission. He said that this was not going to serve Denver metropolitan, but was designed to serve strictly Weld County. Mr. Lind is further quali, excuse me, further quoted, and this is, I am assuming, a direct misquote opposite. It says, and I quote, "Lind said the three hundred and twenty acre site proposed for the landfill is the most inspected, evaluated parcel of land in Weld County. " Well, we've heard him today say one hundred sixty acres and he clarified that at the Land Use meeting last Friday. Uh. I apologize for the misquote that came from myself. That is not what I said, that is not what I intended to say, uh, I will leave it there. I will further quote from this bad information that' s floating around, and this is from a, this is notes taken from a conversation with Mr. Warden, Weld County Finance Officer Friday, October 23 , 1979 . I 'm sure Mr. Warden will remember the conversation. He said, and I quote, " Initially we are expecting fifty to one hundred trucks per day, expanding to over three hundred trucks per day, as the north Denver sites close down. " At that point I asked, ' Do you intend to require Colorado Landfill or do you intend to asphalt the roads into the site? ' His remark was , 'we have nothing in our five-year comprehensive plan that provides for asphalting of the roads. ' He further said addi, okay, he said expanding expanding to over three hundred trucks per day as the north Denver sites close down. He commented further , ' additional proposed sites in _gin_ Adams County will not be approved because of the shallow water tables and associated leachate problems. ' This was a direct quote as I can construct from my notes. Further to that he said 'Weld County Commissioner hope to establish a landfill to serve southwest Weld County and pick up the Denver slack. ' Okay, that' s enough of the misinformation that has gone back and forth. We will try to stay with facts from here on out. Uh, the bird hazard issue I spoke to you briefly about the last time I was here. I will go back again and read several items because I think they are still quite applicable. It says, 'garbage dumps, sanitary landfills, whatever title is used for the type of operation, attract rodents and birds . Road to the airport environment and where the dump is ignited creates smoke all of which are undesireable and are a potential hazard to aviation. -While the chance of an unforeseen, random bird strike implied will always exist, it neverthless is possible to define the high-risk conditions within fairly narrow limits. Those high-risk conditions exist in the take off, climb out, approach, and landing areas on and in the vicinity of airports . Okay, at that point I will stop and refer to the map over here. Mr. Keirnes this morning pointed out that we do have uh on our non, on our primary runway, which is runway one-five, a non-standard traffic pattern. He said that traffic, there was a little bit of an error, I think, in his statement, I think he 'd like to probably retract it. He said that pattern altitude is eight hundred feet. This is true for piston aircraft. The small aircraft are designated eight hundred feet. Jet aircraft, larger aircraft typically fly one thousand to fifteen hundred feet and it' s not as black and white. But anyway, we do fly a right hand pattern when landing on runway one-five, we do fly a standard pattern, which we corrected himself in , when we ' re landing on runway three-three. One-five is our primary runway, into the prevailing winds, the southeast, which are borne out by the NCAR data, whatever. The hazard is not in the downwind area. Typically you ' re downwind, if you' re a little airplane , you ' re eight hundred feet, if you' re a jet you ' re a thousand, fifteen hundred, bigger aircraft. The problem is in the approach and departure corridors . This is the area immediately off of the runway. When the air- craft is at altitudes less than five hundred feet, and is at airspeeds in the marginal area just above a stall. You bring an aircraft in to land and you have it at a speed something uh like thirty percent above your stalling speed on• the aircraft. Those of you that are pilots, I 'm sure will, will recognize this. Okay. The study goes on to say various studies and observations have resulted in the conclusion that sanitary landfills are art- ificial attractants to birds. Accordingly, landfills located in the vicinity of landfills may be incompatible with safe flight operations. Those conditions that are not compatible must be eliminated to the extent practical. Airport owners need guidance in making this decision, and the FAA must be in position to assist. Some airports are not under the jurisdiction of the community or the local governing body having control of land useage in the vicinity of the airport. In these cases the airport owners should use its influence and best effort to close or control landfill operations within the general vicinity of the airport. Mr. Roe, the last time I was here you asked my uh you know, well, there was a landfill there, and it keeps coming out in testimony before this commission and others that I have heard that there was a landfill at the site, the existing site. This is not true. The existing landfill occupied a space less than twenty acres, three thousand feet further away from our airport than the proposed landfill site. This data is constructed by Robinson Engineering in Denver, Colorado, from the maps provided by Colorado Landfill, Inc. which were received from your people. Uh. I think that point is a, a major one: that we ' re not putting a landfill right back where it was, and we ' re not putting the same type of a landfill. I 've been in that area the past five years . I 'm very familiar with the old landfill site. I 'm very familiar, I think, with what is proposed. The old landfill, prior to the last year or two, was very much a community dump. I will emphasize that because it was just the people of Erie hauling their pickup loads out there . In the last eighteen months , year to eighteen months , or operation of the landfill site it did escalate into much more than that. There were a considerable number of packers , -76- probably in excess of the twenty-eight that Mr. Nelson is projecting for that, during the last year. We could verify that but I would just make that comment. The uh. I have in written correspondence to the commission provided maps from USGS , plotted on USGS maps by the uh, uh Robinson Engineering people in Denver that show these proximities, that uh the old landfill is eighty-four hundred feet away at the closest point, the new landfill is fifty-two hundred feet at the nearest point. Uh, I would go back to the contention that we were dealing before with a very small insigni- ficent landfill which has not been, being potentially replaced by a regional landfill, at least from the testimony that has been provided to me on several occasions. This has been reputed but I , I really don' t know who to believe, your county finance officer or my business sense that tells me how much it takes to generate a businss based on, you know, a dollar amount. Anyway, I would go on to the advisory circular, which, under criteria, item five, sanitary landfills will be considered as incompatible use if located within areas established for the airport through the application of the following criteria; item a, landfills located within ten thousand feet of any runway used or planned to be used by turbojet aircraft. That last time I was here, uh, Mr. Roe asked me, he said, well why did you buy property on that airport, why did you build on it, when there was an existing landfill there? Uh. The landfill ceased to exist there on the first of June. It no longer exists. It does not exist now. We are no longer in noncompatible use if we ever were. But now we are proposing to put a noncompatible use situation back there. I built a three hundred and fifty thousand dollar structure. I put half, over a million dollars worth of equipment on that airport because I knew there wasn' t an airport there , or wasn' t a landfill there. You are now attempting to re-establish a noncompatible use. Uh. Anyway it goes on to say, item B, landfills located within five thousand feet of any runway used only by piston type aircraft. Well, if that were the only use, if it was an airport which used only piston type aircraft, the two hundred feet that we ' re talking about that could or could not take a life out of the sky, I wouldn' t even bet on those odds . Item D, I will skip 'C ' because 7 7_ it' s not applicable, uh, I 'm sure you've all read this , but I will go on with Item D. Later in my testimony I 'd like to make points on these, Item D, any landfill located such that it places the runways and/or approach and departure patterns of an airport between bird feeding, water or roosting areas. Okay. -7 - (Tape Change #79 - 148) WILLIAM J . CARLEY (Continuing) : Okay, thank you. I will read correspondence dated October 30, 1978 , between, from Thomas L. Pierce, general manager Erie Air Park to myself: Uh, 'William J. Carley, President, Aero Systems, Inc. , P . O. Box 3602 , Boulder, Colorado. Deal Bill: In response to your questions regarding closing on your commercial property, Block 7 , Lot 2 at Erie Air Park, the runways at Tri-County Airport are designated for aircraft up to thirty thousand pounds maximum. The longest runway is fifty-four hundred feet, with aviation easements to protect the approach and departure corridors. The airport is within the city limits of Erie, Colorado, and governed by their airport ordinance. ' Next paragraph, 'Federal Aviation Agency airspace designation was granted on July 19 , 1977 , and a copy of this designation is provided herein' . Next paragraph, 'Tri-- County Airport was designated to handle all business aircraft up to our maximunlanding weight and will more than adequately handle your company' s Lear 23, turbo-prop aircraft and your smaller aircraft as well. We will look forward to having your group among us at Erie Air Park' . Signed, ' Sincerely, Thomas L. Pierce' . I will read briefly from the Airspace Designation, Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, addressed to Thomas L. Pierce dated July 19 , 1977 . 'Dear Mr. Pierce: An airspace analysis of the proposed privately owned public use Erie Air Park airport, Lafayette, Colorado has been completed. It has been determined by this study that the airport will not adversely affect the safe and efficient use of aircraft, excuse me, of airspace by aircraft provided the to ephone wires north and east of the proposed airport are either marked or buried. ' The rest of it is boiler plate. I will be handing this into you, uh, I will not read the rest, but it, uh, it pretty much reviews different regulations. Uh. The uh airspace designation is something that is a little bit strange to me . You do not get a black and white written approval from the FAA that says ' hey, you ' ve built runways out here. They look like an airport , we ' re going to call you an -79- airport. ' What you get is an airspace designation. I would go further to offer an opinion, and this is an expert opinion based on fifteen years in the industry, the FAA cannot publish in the Airman' s Informational Manual, items that restrict the operation of an airport without the permission of the controlling agency, so you' re back to the Erie Town Council and their ordinance and the owners of Erie Air Park. Uh, in, yeah, flight patterns for the Tri-County Airport are impacted at the approach and departure corridors to the primary runways one-five, three-- three. The crosswind runway is a short runway designed to handle very light aircraft on extremely windy days. Mr. Keirnes, if he were landing his F-4, which could be done there, by the way, uh on that runway, irregardless of what the wind was blowing, he 'd still land into the wind on the longest runway, he wouldn' t worry about the small runway. If he was flying Citabria, the current aircraft that he is flying, he would probably more concerned about landing into the runway, or excuse me, into the wind and not the longest runway. Uh. Changing the patterns as suggested has no real impact on the potential hazard that exists. I will talk briefly about a case that' s familiar to anyone that' s been in aviation any period of time and it' s called the, the Fireman' s Insurance Fund Group vs. the Dekalb County, Georgia. And this case is currently on the agenda for the next session of the U. S . Supreme Court. It goes back to 1974 when a Lear jet was taking off from Peachtree Airport, Dekalb County, Georgia over the top of a county-run landfill site . It ingested four blackbirds into one engine , three black birds into the other engine. The pilot did the humane thing and elected to land away from the houses nearby, but in thirty seconds ' time, seven people were dead. They ' re still dead. The county took the position that there was really no defense for this, there was a hazard, they were respon- sible for it. They took sovereign immunity. It has gone through the courts for five years now and it ' s now up to the Supreme Court. If I were betting I would bet that sovereign immunity does not fly before the Supreme Court for severalreasons . We are an English law nation and there has been a recent precedent set in Norwich, England where a bird strike resulted in an airplane crash. There was liability assessed. It was assessed to a government agency that allowed the noncompatible use or granted a permit, whatever. This uh, the ruling was that the governing agency was both publicly and privately liable and uh, the lawsuits are just now going ahead. But the Supreme Court will have this to contend with. There are at least a dozen other cases that are currently pending where bird strikes resulted in aircraft accidents, some of which were fatal, some were not. Uh, Mr. Mike Michael Harrison, Captain Harrison, with the uh U. S. Air Force, currently on loan to the Federal Aviation Agency, is a biologist and this is his specialty, and I think that this is who Mr. Roe is referring to when he said that he'd spoke with someone in Washington and they were taking the position that • they opposed the airport. Is this correct? Okay. Michael Harrison further told me that if required he would come out here and testify before this group, alluding further to, or testifying further to the potential hazards that we can put together. I will at this time, I have sent copies through, zerox copies, of photographs taking at, taken at all the regional sites in this area dumps, or excuse me at three of the regional sites in this area which include the Greeley-Milliken site. These photographs were taken by a Greeley resident, Dennis Irvine, who is a, currently an airline pilot with Frontier Airlines, a former F-4 pilot, identical background to Duncan Keirnes. He is a, a Greeley native, went off to the Air Force, flew F-4s, instructor, pilot, uh, essentially a twin. Dennis is currently with Frontier. When he heard what was happening, he immediately went out and took these photographs and brought them down to me. I have sent copies along to you. These photographs in uh Greeley-Milliken site were taken on 11-1 of ' 79 . The photographs taken in the Denver, north Denver site were on 11-8 of ' 79 . The ones taken at the Marshall site were on 10-25 of ' 79 . I will leave these with you as I depart. But , as you can see, this is what might occur fifty-two hundred feet away from our main runway. I 'm not saying that it will. No one really can. But if I were -87.- betting, yeah, I 'm not a betting man, I 'm a business man. Anyway, that' s what we're looking at. Okay. Yeah. I 'm getting ahead of myself. Uh. I didn' t complete, went back now and I will take it a little bit further. I am, I have over eleven thousand hours of flight time. Uh. In that eleven thousand hours I 've taken a dozen bird strikes, none of them brought me out of the sky. One of them came very close, one of them broke a windshield and I have a cut here from the flying glass. Uh. I 'm still here. That doesn' t mean that the first uh if you establish the landfill and one April day next year when we have our maximum seagull population on the landfill I ingest a seagull in one engine- coming off the airport and put that down in the middle of Erie, uh, I might not be around anymore. The seven people at Dekalb County' s Peachtree Airport, they' re not, and they didn' t take a seagull, they took seven small starlings, little bitty birds . Uh. Okay. I would pass one other map through which I did not, and this is my own rendering of , taken off that USGS map, but it shows the proposed landfill site, the old Erie site, it shows the airport, and it shows the potential watering areas. I was happy that Lynn Keirnes showed the slides of the area because if you looked to the east and northeast and southeast, you' ll find that it is rising terrain. There ' s no standing water out there for those birds. They are going to go primarily west to the reservoirs I 've shown here which takes them directly across our approach and departure corridors to our main runway. That I will pa$ through as well. The other point I would make in closing is that when Tom Pierce and his group bought the land to develop Tri-County Airport they bought adjacent property on either side of the airport, of the approaches and departure corridors . They further went to the city and as, asked them to establish aviation corridors to protect of anyone building in that area. This is part of the Erie Airport Ordinance. They further took the approach and departure into the runway and cleared as much as possible of the brush, they channelized the creek to promote rapid water egress through the area to eliminate the bird hazard, the indigenous -82- bird population, as much as possible. They have made major efforts. They have planted crops on the airport proper to discourage bird population. They channelized the creek, they removed dead trees, they conduct mulling operations, they are going out of their way to eliminate standing water and potential indigenous bird populations. Further to that, uh, we have heard testimony both today and before about the Lafayette Lagoon which is down the road from me, and I have to say I 'm not any happier about that than I am the potential landfill, but I will make the statement, and Lafayette will back me up, becuase I 've been to their meetings as well, that' s not a lagoon, it' s a closed environmental sewage-- treatment system. It is going to turn out only potable water. There will be no surface water. It is not a lagoon. I think that point needs to be made. Uh, at this point I will pass the pictures through. Uh. I would make one other point. Uh. I think that Colorado Landfill in everything that I 've determined, Lynn Keirnes and his troops are really making a major effort to run decent landfill operations . I would further make the point that in their attempts there are still things at their sites, that are still not as they' re supposed to be and this was even shown in one of their slides. I show you a picture of the debris fence with eighteen foot high poles that don' t have any fence on them. Uh, this is at the Greeley-Milliken site. Now I didn't take that picture, I know nothing about it. The gentleman that did told me that that was supposed to have wire on it, whether or not it is supposed to, I don' t know. But, Uh, if I appreciate being listened to again and CHAIRMAN CARLSON: The Board have any questions of Bill? WILLIAM J. CARLEY: I feel that we have established that a potential hazard does exist. Via those pictures . Now I agree that you can go out on certain days and take pictures and there may not be any birds or there may be a very reduced population. But look at the North Denver site, look at the Greeley site CHAIRMAN CARLSON: is this the Marshall site . WILLIAM J. CARLEY : The Marshall site is at Boulder? But you will see bird populations in excess of three thousand -83- there as well. Uh, By the way, uh, the those photographs it' s difficult to uh pick out, and I 'm not sure that I brought the photograph, but I will tell you about it. They have what' s called an acoustical sounder which you cannot used at the projected site because of the decibel level, but this is a carbide device that just causes a cannon-like explosion every thirty second. Boom. Boom. Just all day long. This is to keep the bird population way. They had over five hundred to a thousand seagulls nesting within twenty-five to fifty feet of that acoustical sounder, so you' re dealing with seagull as a primary problem, they're not easy to deal with. Uh. Yeah, thank you very much. KENNETH LIND: You want to hear a short speaker? TOM PIERCE: I just wait to clarify a couple of points. Uh. We are and I CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Would you state your name? TOM PIERCE: I 'm Tom Pierce. I 'm one of the prime devel- opers down there. Uh. I 'd just like to tell you we are making major efforts to to dredge that creek. We, we 've done probably a quarter of a mile of it already. We've got probably three-quarters of a mile to go. It' s a big project. It' ll take, oh, I would venture to say, another year and a half to get it clear through, but we will get it done. The crops that we are planting around that airport are annual crops . We've got alfalfa in and around the runways right now. We' re doing everything we can to discour- age the bird population. And, as was indicated earlier, we do have a non-standard traffic pattern on there. Now I knew that old dump was there, and that' s one of the main reasons that we do have a non-standard pattern there . The extremity of the old dump was right at ten thousand feet away, the closest part was about eighty-four hundred feet. It was marginal at the time , but moving it up three thousand feet puts it clear out of the ball- park. Uh. We ' re making application for the (Not Audible) funding that is being looked at in Congress right nowfor our expansion. This will mean a huge difference in both the airport and the Town of Erie if we accomplish it. If the landfill goes in we will -24- not qualify for those federal funds and that is just a fact. Uh. I further called my insurance people and I don' t know if I can keep the liability policy for the airport in effect. That will be determined later. Of course, obviously, if the landfill doesn' t go we' ll keep it. That ' s it. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Any questions of Mr. Pierce? Evidently not. ROBERT FROST: Ny name is Robert Frost. Mr. Carlson, Commissioners, I 'm with the Wave Propagation Laboratory, excuse me, of the Environmental Research Laboratories of NOAA. I 've been a a research administrator for twenty years. I 've been associated with the Wave Propagation Laboratory and closely associated with the BAO, the Boulder Atmospheric Observatory, for the past six. The Wave Propagation Laboratory, as the other research laboratories of NOAA, has it principal purposes improving NOAA' s services, In the case of the Wave Propagation Laboratory, the particular specialty in this lab is developing remote sensing instruments. This work has been underway for about now eleven years. At the time there was a need identified for an atmospheric observatory, the point had been reached in developing remote sensing technology where facility was needed to compare what our remote sensor sees with instruments on a atmospheric tower. Now basically, a remote sensor is typically a electronic device, usually tied in with modern small computers. It ' s capable of acquiring remotely, from a point on the ground, meteorological parameters, such as moisture, winds, temperatures along a path or in a volume. The Wave Propagation Laboratory is developing a family of remote senors which will become the means of provided for the future weather service which we all, which we had a few days ago. This area in particular is certainly subject to snowstorms, icestorms, downspoke winds , even tornadoes , flash floods , the types of seveae storms that affect people and their activities. Remote sensors will be the type of technology which will allow the continuous measurements in time at an economic cost which will provide these new forecasts of the zero to six hour sorts of periods . Which will let us know as you are sitting here this afternoon that tonight about eight thirty to ten o' clock there' ll be some sort of change in the weather. It is felt from our studies that this kind of information is very much wanted by the public. The Boulder Atmospheric Observatory came about as the result of extensive search in this large vicinity. The actual site surveys went on over a two-year period, ending in the first part of 1975 . Most of the searches occurred during 1974 . The search was conducted by air, on the ground, and I must say with respect to earliercomments, even though we were making aerial surveys, there was no notice made of an obvious landfill operation two miles away at the old Erie dump site. Again, remember this was in 1974 . Based on situations and observations that existed, in 1974, in 1975 , the decision was made to select the site that is now called the Boulder Atmospheric Observatory. This selection was brought before the Weld County Commissioners, as you may all recall from past activities, which involved rezoning an entire section of ground into scientific planned unit development. Now, the siting criteria that we were most concerned with at the time were the facts that the ground around what was to be the tall tower was old mined-out coal fields. Fortunately, with some geological sleuthing, we identified a fault that was right through three coalfields that had never been mined. We proved this by geological examination. So we found a perfect island for the tower, surrounded on both sides, all sides for distances out to a couple of miles with coal fields so the prospect of residential building was very low. We wanted the terrain to be basically undeveloped in the fullest extent and not likely to develop. .We wanted an absence of change to the nearest extent possible. The surrounding ground was typically dryland wheat farming. This condition continues. But now we find a change is proposed which will change the nature of the representative environment which existed in 1974 in ways that will begin to erode the efficient use of this Boulder Atmospheric Observatory . I think it' s important that your Board be aware that in creating and approving the special scientific zoning for this facility, that you have, you planted the seed at that time in the first quarter of 1976 , -86- towards what has developed as a very large and extensive and expensive research facility. The tower, the thousand-foot tower which you are all familiar with is only the visible part of it. The research program itself involves, involves not only instruments on the tower, but remote senors on the ground. Now some of these types of instruments, on the tower and on the ground, are affected by increases in fugitive dust. We are concerned about any land use change which would increase the amount of fugitive dust in the general environment. One other aspect, which is part of the research program, one of my colleagues will talk about, is the use of research aircraft. While most of these aircraft do not originate at the airport, you will be told about how they fly, the kind of patterns, which does mean that low-flying birds are • a hazard to these low-flying aircraft. An important aspect of the rezoning that was approved by the Board of County Commissioners in the first quarter of 1976 was this was not just limited to rezoning a piece of ground, a square mile, in terms of the program, it was accepting the concept that this was an aerial type of activity. It involved the use of research aircraft, it involved the use of remote sensing systems on the ground as well as those in the tower. These instruments, particularly the optical instruments, which are (Not distinguishable) , they are one of the family of instruments that are a part of this advancing techno- logy of developing, trying out experimentally, proving them experimentally, developing operational models or remote sensors which can measure the basic meteorlogical parameters which make up the weather service . Basically winds, moisture, liquid waters, temperatures, those are the meteorological parameters, all of which are being worked on in terms of being able to be sensed remotely, continuously in time measurements of these parameters. Once we can understand the changes that are occurring in the atmosphere, through these direct measurements, remote sensors, coupled with in situ sersorswe have the capability for the advanced weather forecasting service. The Boulder Atmospheric Observatory has become a national facility. I think it is impor- -87- tant, extremely important, for the Board of County Commissioners to be aware that the southwest part of Weld County is not only important to the immediate environment, that we're certainly very happy to be here with representatives from the Erie area. During our developing of our application before Weld County we did have an environmental study, we did contact extensively residents, public interest groups, locally, regionally, even state-wide, certainly aviation interests from the standpoint of the tower being a hazard to aviation. It was ruled it was not by the FAA. There was extensive publicity about the proposed plan. Some of you some of you may recall that at the final hearing before the County Commissioners in that first quarter of 1976, the chairman at that time complimented our presentation for having being so thorough in its public interest, in making people aware what the plans were. Because of an oversight, we were not aware of this proposal of Colorado Landfill, it was the second incident in essentially six months. We were also concerned about the Eagle Strip Mine from the same reason, the potential risk of fugitive dust, particularly coal dust, on the adjoining section of ground. ' So I think, one thing I ' d like to accomplish in my presentation today is to make you aware that the facility has gone from an idea to, not only the tower, but a active research program with something like four million dollars already invisted, invested, something like a six hundred thousand dollar per year operating expense, of the, of the facility itself and something on the order of twenty to thirty research scientists of NOAA and NCAR jointly share the benefits of this research facility. It' s a large investment it will be larger. Just pa, just this past year Congress approved a five million dollar per year for four year financing of a program called PROFS , Prototype Regional Observing Forecasting Service. I mentioned this before. PROFS will be the type of service leading through for a prototype in a regional area, in a region range from Colorado Springs basically to the Fort Collins area. Applying remote sensors which will be developed, calibrated, tested against instruments in the tower , used exper- -88- imentally in the field with tower instruments, with research aircraft to demonstrate that they can be effective in providing the meteorological observations that will support PROFS. Weld County can be please and very happy that they have in fact a national facility in Weld County which is providing a public service that will benefit not only the local area, the state, but also eventually the nation. Thank you COMMISSIONER ROE : Uh, I have one question. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Go ahead. COMMISSIONER ROE: You were talking about the changes that would take place in this area and how, how they could be detrimental to your ROBERT FROST: Right. COMMISSIONER ROE : facility there. Well, if the projections are true, that Erie will sometime in the future have a population of ten thousand people, will that have an effect? ROBERT FROST: No. Basically the effect of immediate concern are ones associated with uh pollution particulates uh, dust, dust with some optical instruments basically is seen as a contam- inant, it confuses the types of observations they make. It' s difficult to distinguish between the dust particle and the natural targets that you' re looking at. In some cases they have the same re, return. The uh, I forgot to mention and your comments remind me, the Denver 'brown cloud' is one of the other types of events which studies are involved with at BAO with instruments on the tower and also instruments on aircraft. Uh. These particular kind of instruments are in, are affected by any changes in the representative environment from what it was back in 1974. And again third, the bird hazard is thought to be a risk with respect to the low-flying aircraft in making those kind of monitoring flights in the area. COMMISSIONER DUNBAR: I ' d like to ask one question. Are you going to be located there definitely in this ROBERT FROST: Indefinitely? COMMISSIONER DUNBAR: Yeah. -89- ROBERT FROST: One advantage of remote sensors, they uh in principle should put the tower out of business. At such time as these irstrumerts have been perfected to where all the meteor- logical parameters that you can measure on a tower can be measured remotely, then you don' t need a tower. At the present time the tower site is on leased land. The tower is a demount- able tower uh rather than a permanent structure. It can be taken apart as it was put together uh by nuts and bolts. So to answer your question, there, the tower has a finite life. At the present time we're thinking in terms of twenty years certain. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: What' s the height of that tower? • ROBERT FROST: It' s nine hundred and eighty-five feet • or three hundred meters. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Well, there' s probably should have been something in the Special Use Permit, development standards when that tower was approved by the commissioner in that the neighboring activity should be, uh, you should be given notification of it, and there wasn' t anything in there. Perhaps ROBERT FROST: That' s true CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Just a through a courtesy the planning department should receive a letter from you asking for notification of anything within the perimeter that you so desire. ROBERT FROST: Yes . This was done, Mr. Chairman, as of last May with a letter which was uh CHAIRMAN CARLSON : I think I have a copy of that ROBERT FROST: Yes. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Isn' t that, say that' s sufficient ROBERT FROST: Right. CHAIRMAN CARLSON : The first of May ROBERT FROST: Okay CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Okay ROBERT FROST : One concluding thought. Because we have a very interesting facility there, because its purpose affects many parts of Weld County interests and activities, uh, I would like to make it a point to invite you and your fellow commissioners and youurstaff . -90- CHAIRMAN CARLSON: To ride up the elevator: ROBERT FROST: To do that if you 'd like, but to visit the, to visit the Boulder Atmospheric Observatory. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Take you up on that. That sounds interesting. NATE STIEVING: Uh, my name is Nat Stieving. I 'm with NOAA. I have a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Oregon, Master of Public Administration degree from the George Washington University in Washington. I have served NOAA and its predecessor agencies including US Weather Bureau for about thirty years in both technical and administrative capacities. I have served at field observing sites at the regional level, at the national level in Washington. Presently I 'm Deputy Director of Research Support Services of the Environmental Research Laboratory headquartered in Boulder. Appreciate very much the opportunity to speak briefly to you this afternoon on four points concerning this issue. The first point I 'd like to talk about is the original siting of the tower: where it is . I was not a part of the surveying team at the time they made the survey " for siting the tower. As near as I can ascertain the existing Erie site was not recognized as a problem at the time the survey was conducted in 1974 . Our surveys were conducted by air and the operation was apparently so small it was not recognized as a problem. However I feel that it is a question of magnitude. If there were twenty-eight compactor trucks per day going into the site at that time I 'm sure it would have recognized as a problem at that time just as we are recognizing it as a problem today. By the testimoney presented this morning, the proposed new site was described as serving twice the population of the old site . I would like to remind the commissioners that by that testimoney, by 1990 it will be over three times the amount of the old site. We are no talking, no longer talking about a small site serving Erie, its immediate environs , we' re talking about a regional site serving a large portion of Weld County and even extending beyond Weld County. In talking of twenty-eight compactor trucks, of course , that doesn' t take into account the -91 - private people who will be going there with their trailers, their trucks and uh their cars. So it will generate a significant increase in traffic in the area. The second point I 'd like to talk about is again the bird problem. I know you've heard a lot about the bird problem. It was suggested this morning that one way to solve that would be to issue a notice to airmen. This has the effect as I understand it of placing pilots on notice. In other words they would fly jets or turbo-prop aircraft in the area at their own risk. I would just like to point out that this still does not eliminate the hazard or the problem. It is still there. I do not know this, but I would assume that it' s quite possible that people who have already made a investment in facilities at the air park may choose to go ahead even if the notice were issued to fly in at their own risk. And I would ask, is it really fair at this time to impose this additional hazard on them. If they choose to abide by the notice and not fly, then they are precluded from carrying on an operation, an existing operation which they have already existed their, or invested significant funds. If this does happen, then they' re precluded from carrying on an existing activity, and I feel that this would not agree with the conditions implied for a Special Use Permit that' s supposed to recognize existing activities and the effect of the Special Use Permit on the surrounding areas . The third point I would like to make uh is getting to the study of the instruments uh that we have on the tower. This morning ' s presentation indicated that methane gas would be evaporated into the air. The NOAA tower instrumentation is designed in part to measure constituent gases of the atmosphere. Any introduction of trace elements that make the atmosphere surrounding sup the site unrepresentative of the environment the way it orginally was will comprement, will compromise the tower instruments ' readings. Finally, I would like to, Mr. Frost stole some of my thunder when he invited you to the tower, I was planning to do that. I would like to say that with the cooperation of this Board in gaining a scientific planned unit development for the site of the tower, we have invested a large amount of money -92- in the tower. It has grown, it has developed into a national facility. Not only is it a national facility, but we have foreign visitors that come to the site to make comparative readings. United States in the World Meteorological Organization is recognized as a leader in that this tower is recognized as a unique facility. We built it upon the assurance and the cooper- ation of the Board that it would be kept and maintained. I urge you therefore to before you make a decision on this to consider it carefully--- the possible impact this will have on our site. And I would like to reinforce Mr. Frost ' s invitation to come out and visit the site and hear first hand, see it first hand and visit with our scientists and see first hand the work they' re doing and the potential benefits that will derive from that, not only for Colorado but for the nation as a whole, and I ' ll be glad to arrange such a visit if you so desire and if you deem it' s appro-- priate Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Thank you. Any questions of the Board? Is anybody else here that HAROLD BAYNTON: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, and staff, my name is Harold Baynton. I was granted the Bachelor of Arts degree in physics at the University of Saskatchewan in 1941. I underwent eight months of intensive training in meteorology in 1941 and 1942 in Toronto at the headquarters of the Canadian Meteorological Services. I earned a Master of Science degree in meteorology at the University of Michigan in 1957 , a Master of Arts in statistics also at the Unversity of Michigan in 1959 , and Ph D in Meteorology from the University of Michigan in 1963 . My dissertation was on atmospheric diffusion which is that aspect of meteorology relating to air pollution. I was elected to the honor scholastic socity Phi Beta Kappa in 1957 . I have been a professional meteorologist for thirty-seven years. I have certificate number fifty issued by the American Meteorological Society in 1965 as a certified consulting meteorologist. I 'm a member of the American Meteorological Society, the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, the Air Pollution -91- Control Association, and a fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society. I served for four years on the American Meteorological Society' s committee on atmospheric measurements, including one year as chairman. My work experience includes ten years of forecasting for aviation and the general public, three years as senior research meteorologist on the Detroit River Air Pollution Study, with the technical advisory board on air pollution to the international joint commission. For three years I was a research associate at the University of Michigan, for seven years an applied climatologist with the Bendix Corporation at Ann Arbor and the Martin Company in Denver. For the last fifteen years I have been a scientist with NCAR which is the National Center for Atmospheric Research. NCAR is operated by the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, a consortium of about forty-five universities that have programs in atmospheric science. NCAR is sponsored by the National Science Foundation which is an agency of the federal government. Although the staff of NCAR are not employees of the federal government, all property in NCAR' s custody, including buildings and scientific equipment is the ' property of the United States government. NCAR is a partner with NOAA in the development of the Boulder Atmospheric Observatory, located two miles east of Erie on section 16 , T1N, R68W. NOAA has provided the tower and the instrumentation thereon, representing an investment of close to four million dollars of federal funds . NCAR is committed to provide the buildings to support the research activities at the observatory. The building will of course also be the property of the United States government. Our plan is to erect a six-thousand square foot, three hundred and fifty thousand dollar building about three hundred feet from Weld. County Road 8 , the southern boundary of Section 16 . We are concerned about the negative impact of the proposed landfill on the scientific program at the observatory. We are also concerned about the economic impact on the building. Concerning the scientific program at the observatory, from the beginning NCAR has been enthusiastic about the research that can be undertaken at this unique national facility. Already a benchmark boundary-layer study has been -94- accomplished at the observatory in September of 1978 . Low-flying aircraft from NCAR' s research aviation facility at Jefferson County Airport joined with radars and surface weather instruments to describe the growth of the convective process during the daylight hours. In August and September of this year the World Meteorological Organization, a specialized agency of the United Nations, carried out an international inter-comparison of low-level sounding systems at the observatory. The site is presently free of major local sources of gases other than that caused by traffic on Interstate 25. There is fugitive dust caused by tilling of the fields and by traffic on unimproved roads. And I can give you estimates with respect to the uh tilling of the fields. That would work out to about a hundred and twenty-four tons per year in the vicinity of the tower if we define the vicinity as a twenty-five section area centered on the tower. There' s a methodology for computing emissions of fugitive dust and I 'm attaching as an appendix to my report uh, I ' ll be giving copies to you, a description of that methodology. The fugitive dust that is estimated from the thirty miles of unimproved roads in the vicinity of the tower is five hundred and seventeen tons per year. The volume of traffic on unimproved roads will increase by about twenty-five per cent if the landfill is approved because the last mile must be driven on an unimproved road. Uh. If the access is not by Weld County Road 8 , it may be more than the last mile. An additional hundred and twenty tons per year of fugitive dust would result. Moreover, trucks returning from the landfill will often carry mud into Weld County Road 8 , only three-quarters of a mile from our proposed building, and we will have a major close-in secondary source of dust to contend with. This is in addition to the hundred and twenty tons per year cited above. Dust degrades the performance of certain optical-type instruments on the tower and they require more frequent cleaning to maintain them at peak performance. Moreover the significant amounts of dust generated by landfill traffic and earthhandling at the landfill and any methane or other gases -95- emanating from the landfill under appropriate winds will preclude collection of representative air pollution data at the tower. And this again is with reference to the concern about the Denver brown cloud .and the, the, the use of the tower as a way of monitoring trends in that brown cloud. NCAR' s specially instru- mented aircraft, two Queen Airs, a turbo-prop Electra, and a Sabra liner jet are used all over the world to conduct research. A principal means of calibrating this sensors prior to embarking on remote research missions is to fly them past the tower at heights of a few hundred feet to insure that they agree with the precision sensors on the tower. Calibration flights are normally performed at right angles to the wind direction or parallel to the wind direction. A typical calibration routine would involve uh both patterns. During southeast winds which are common at the observatory, the flights would be along a northeast-southwest course for par, part of the calibration. We would require low level turns in the vicinity uh of the proposed landfill. The concentration of birds near the landfill would constitute a hazard to their safe flight. If the uh winds were southwesterly which is another fairly frequent wind direction, uh, then the, that portion of the calibration flight parallel to the wind direction would carry the aircraft towards the landfill and the same problem would result. Finally, let me summarize our concern about the economic impact of the landfill on the building. Having been the operators of an electronic and repan, and mechnical maintenance shop across from the sanitary landfill near Marshall for many years we can speak from first hand experience. The road from Boulder to the landfill is littered with debris that has fallen off open trucks . Um. I would just like to uh point out that a low, the volume of trash that is a , that has been estimated in testimony earlier today, uh, for , uh, the area that will be serviced by this landfill , it, uh, may be carried in compactors . Uh, a considerable amount of it is normally carried in, in private trucks and many cases by property owners themselves in open pickup trucks, and the practice uh, uh is to pile all that you -96- can on and a good deal of that tends to bounce off the truck. One find pieces of lumber with nails protruding, old tires, pieces of wallboard, sheet metal and so forth. Nor are the compactors totally immune from this charge. In many cases the last items picked up cannot be stored inside and is subject to falling or blowing off from the open space at the rear of the compactor. It can be assumed that Weld County traffic from the north and east of the site will exit from I-25 at Weld County Road 8 and proceed past the southern edge of the observatory site, within three hundred feet of our proposed building. The effect of this type of littering is cumulative. It is axiomatic in real estate that location is the key to property value and a structure beside a road littered with trash and garbage will inevitably de, be depreciated. There are some other uh comments • that I want to make related to testimony that we have heard earlier today. Uh. Much has been made about uh the subject of the prevailing winds, and uh, uh, I think that we ought to put prevailing wind in perspective. First of all, by defining it. I think the average person when he hears the prevailing wind is ' blowing away from him assumes that his problems have ended. Um, I 'm going to quote a from the two recognized glossaries of meteorology in the English-speaking world. The Glossary of Meteorology of the American Meteorological Society and Meteorological Glossary of the Royal Meteorological Society. Uh. The American definition is: 'Prevailing wind direction. The wind direction most frequently observed during a given period. The periods most frequently used are the observational day, month, season and year. ' And the, the British definition is , ' that direction of wind which at a given place occurs more frequently than any other during a specified period. Over all parts of the British Isles, statistics show the prevailing wind to be on an eight-point compass, south, southwest, or west. There is, however, an appreciable annual variation. In some places the prevailing wind in spring and early summer has an easterly component. ' Well, the point of this is uh, there may be eight, you may deal with an eight-point compass, if there are eight points to the compass and you divide the -97- hundred percent among eight points, you could have a prevailing wind that blew no more than fifteen percent of the time. One simply ought not to be uh greatly reassured if he ' s told that the wind! uh the prevailing wind, is away from him. It may also be to uh towards him a good deal of the time. Uh, the statistics that have been presented in, in the applicant, in the application, involve the prevailing wind information at the Jefferson County Airport which is seven miles from the site and uh, uh, the, and uh presumably is based on a long uh period of time, uh, presumably represents climactic effects . Uh. We ought not to be too reassured by climate however, because uh according to the climate the temperature at Greeley today should be about fifty and there should be no snow on the ground so there are light variations in climate that occur . Uh, the uh, the uh wind data that has been collected at the tower by NOAA at 'a site about two miles from the landfill uh do represent a short sample but they certainly ought to raise some question as to whether the wind most of the time would be away from Efie. During the month of September of 1978 the wind blew from the southeast at the tower twenty-four percent of ' the time. If it blows even fifty percent of the time, that represents one day a week when the community is going to be downwind from the nuisance. Uh, it was suggested also this morning again in the context of discussing prevailing winds that uh angle subtended by the seventy-six acres surrounding the tower was thirteen degress and therefore one should only be concerned about winds from that very narrow section. Uh, we're dealing in this case with diffusion and uh how things uh how ef- fluents behave after the release of source. I might point out also that we ' re not dealing with a point source, we ' re dealing with an area source, uh, and that tends to complicate the thing somewhat more. If you have a single smokestack you can identify that as a point source, but anything as large as even a portion of the hundred and twenty acres becomes an area source . Well , the way material diffusions, diffuses is it is emitted into the wind, the wind tends to meander, there ' s a lot of turbulence -9R- structure, and in fact the material fans out quite substantially. The access of the flume may lie, may have to lie within a thir- teen degree sector to be directly over the tower, but as far as total impact, the effluents from the uh proposed sanitary landfill, the problem is much more serious. It is not simply a thirteen degree sector. A sixty degree sector would be a more accurate estimate. Uh, I 'm I would like to finally make some additional comment on the kinds of flight paths that, that NCAR aircraft will normally fly if they are conducting boundary layer studies in the vicinity of the tower. We discussed this with one of the NCAR pilots at noon and uh, uh, the aircraft, unlike the tower which makes instantaneous measurements--a continuous stream of instantaneous measurements at a point, the tower makes horizontal transects, and it attempts to make average measurements over some specified flight path. The practice in trying to make measurements and compare tham with tower measurements is to uh obtain a level flight pattern about thirty seconds before reaching the tower and to continue in that level flight for about fifteen seconds after passing the tower, then a right hand turn is normally executed. The, the radius of the turn is about a mile. The uh, one uh, in discussing how far they actually traveled before they complete their turn, or before they begin their turn rather, when they' re flying an east-west pattern, um, towards Erie, they begin the turn at the north-south road, I forget the number, it' s probably three. I think. Uh. . . . CHAIRMAN CARLSON: What was that road? HAROLD BAYNTON: On the east side of Erie. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: On the east side of Erie, it' d be three. HAROLD BAYNTON: Yeah. State they CHAIRMAN CARLSON: North and south. HAROLD BAYNTON: They begin their turn after their level flight uh, uh path past the air, past the tower, uh, just about the time they reach that point. If they were uh they ' re , if they were flying towards the sanitary landfill , they would begin their turn before they got to the sanitary landfill , but the normal practice of the southwest turn would, would carry them over. _qq_ That completes my CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Are there any questions : Is there anybody else who would like to testify? JAMES HEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, my name is James Hegarty. I 'm a lawyer. I 'm from Denver. We represent NCAR. I will abide by the Chairman' s request that uh remarks be confined to matters that are not repetitious. The first point I would like to make with respect to the recommendation of the Colorado Department of Health, which was handed in this morning. It seemed to me that the attorney for Colorado Landfill introduced a certain amount of confusion as to whether it did or did not disapprove of the proposed facility. I would like to quote in part from the letter, ' consequently we must recommend disapproval of the facility as long as turbojet or jet aircraft use the airport' . It seems to me crystal clear that the the report of the Colorado Department of Health is one of disapproval of the proposed site. Presumably the Department of Health could change its mind and submit a new report if it chose to, but I respectfully submit that the report which has been submitted is one of disapproval. We all hear different things of course or different things impress themselves upon us . I 've jotted down page after page of notes, but confining myself to those which are not repetitious, or at least relatively not repetitious, I would like to make the following additional points. First, we, we' re basically talking uh here about an enterprise of a private individual on the one hand and its impact on the public on the other hand. Now I don' t for a minute suggest that the citizens of Weld County do not need a place to uh put solid wastes. They do of course, and to that extent uh the interest of, of the, of the public is involved. The point though is that, as one of the representatives of Colorado Landfill stated in the hearing before the Land Use Commission • last week, a site is needed but perhaps not at this location. The facilities , the NOAA and NCAR facilities , are publicly owned facilities owned by the United States government. The effort that is uh, that takes place out at the site is with respect to the health and safety of all of us. It ' s a public endeavor, and I think we have a clear, clear clash between a private interest and the public sector. The factors setforth in the statute 30-20-104 which the Board of County Commissioners must consider seems to me to establish that a Certificate of Designation should not be granted. These include the effect on surrounding property and the uses and values of the surrounding property. We've heard a great deal of testimony this afternoon establishing that the surrounding property will be indeed adversely affected. The proposed landfill site is simply incompatible with the NCAR and NOAA facilities, with the air park, with the Town of Erie. That statute also provides that one of the considerations is the convenience and accessibility of the proposed site to potential users. I 've been personally advised by an officer of Clear Creek Development Company, Frederick Easterburg, by name, that on approximately December 1, this week, a site will be opened up south and west of Brighton. To that extent, uh, this site is not needed uh in the same way that was perhaps supposed or thought last summer. We further submit that the Special Use Permit itself does not authorize operation of the proposed landfill. ' Development standard phases of the landfill facilities and operations conform with all other applicable rules and regulations of governmental bodies having jurisdiction. We submit that the proposed facility does not comply with either the FAA or the EPA requirements . Lastly, I would certainly agree with Mr. Lind in one regard, that' s that uh, time consuming though it may be, we do have to make our record. And I would like to read a list of documents which we would like to have in the record, some uh perhaps most you already have but just to be sure that you have them all, and then I will hand them in. They are the following documents: Letter of November 15 , 1979 from Robert T. Frost of NOAA to Mr. Norman Carlson with attached letter of May 1 , 1979 between the same parties; 2 . Letter from Gavle Packard-- Seeburger for Town of Erie to Colorado Department of Health dated November 9 , 1979 ; 3 . Letter from the same person for the Town of Erie to the Weld County Commissioners dated November 9 , 1979 ; 4 . Letter of November 9 , 1979 from Robert T . Frost to -101- Orville Stoddard; 5. Letter of November 19 , 1979 from James E. Hegarty to the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County; 6 . Letter of November 9, 1979 from National Center of Atmospheric Research, NCAR, to Orville Stoddard with attached FAA regulations and excerpt from the Federal Register; 7 . Letter from Gayle Packard-Seeburger for the Town of Erie to Weld County Commissioners dated November 1, 1979; 8 . Letter from Earl D. Baird to Weld County Commissioners dated September 25, 1979 : 10. A tinted brochure labeled The Boulder Atmostpheric Observatory, (That' s a two-sided document); and 11. and last letter of November 9, 1979 from NCAR to Norman Carlson. Members of the Commission, uh that concludes the presentation of of such opponents as are here this afternoon. Uh we really do submit that uh the Health Department has quite property disapproved the site. Uh. Everyone of us uh, Colorado Landfill certainly included, will bitterly regret the day that permission was granted for operating that land, landfill site uh if an airplane ever goes into the ground and and kills someone. Uh for the additional reasons of the impact of NOAA and NCAR, we submit that that it is not in the public interest to have this site located uh where it' s proposed. If you balance the remarks of the eminent scientists from NCAR and NOAA, I believe logic forces us to conclude that they are much more likely to understand and perceive the impact of the proposed site uh than the uh proponents of the proposed landfill. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Are there any questions of the Board? Mr. Hegarty, are you the last one then to testify? JAMES HEGARTY: Ah, yes, Mr . Carlson. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Let' s take a five minute recess while Mr. Lind prepares CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Call this meeting back to order. I understand Gary Fortner has some information he would like to relate to the Board at this time . GARY FORTNER: The Board requested this morning after the quite lengthy discussion on the conditions imposed by the State Health Department with reference to the Airman ' s Information -1n2_ Manual that we uh discuss uh what it takes to uh get something placed into that manual, specifically the conditions that were talked about uh through the Federal Aviation Administration. We contacted the Federal Aviation Administration this afternoon. I talked to a fe, to a gentleman by the name of Cecil Wagner who is with the Airports Division, and I questioned him as to what was required in order to get a notice put into the Airman' s Information Manual concerning the location of a landfill site, if it was located there and the potential hazard that uh birds would create. Mr. Wagner indicated to me that his division was responsible for what went into that publication. I questioned him as to. how the information gets to them. It goes in there and he indicated that if the Board wanted a particular item listed in there as a possible hazard, that the Board need to contact • that division and then simply request it. He indicated that that was published on a quarterly basis. Uh. They should have thirty to forty-five days lead time in order to get such a notice into the publication and the next publication would be on January 9, 1980. In summary I guess what he relayed to me is it' s a very simple matter to get such a notice placed into that publication uh so that it does give notice to pilots who use that publication. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Is there any questions of Mr. Fortner? Bill? BILL CARLEY: Okay. I am not on firm ground, but I think he is talking about an existinghazard, not one that you' re going to create. I think you need to clarify that to the airports division before you accept that testimony. GARY FORTNER: Okay. He indicate that they could not put any notification into that manual of something that did not already exist. He said the landfill site would have to exist prior to the time they would put that notification in. So I would assume that they would have to start operation, then they could put that in as a notice that a hazard does exist in that area. That is the information he related to me. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Any other questions? Comments? Mr. Lind. -103- KENNETH LIND: Mr. Chairman, our rebuttal is fairly brief. Uh think the first one that I will deal with concerns so-called bird which we still contend is really no problem. As I mentioned to you earlier, EPA has issued their proposed guidance manual for classification of solid waste disposal facilities. Have specific ten-page chapter on safety, bird hazards to aircraft. Last Friday I had an opportunity to discuss this with Mr. Jon Yeagley of EPA Regional Office, Denver. Some clarification, I asked him if he would be able to testify concerning this today. He said no, he would be unable to. He did give me how the EPA reviews these and did state that I can pass this on to you for whatever it' s worth. The way EPA looks at these, they first look at the distances from the landfill to the airport and if it' s within ten thousand feet of a airport that does have occasional jet use, then you go to a a flow chart which is called step two. Now that one is the type of waste. If it' s protrusible waste, then you look at operating techniques, i.e. , the periodic cover which is to deny a food source to birds. If it' s operated properly, you deny a food source to the birds and that ends your review of a bird hazard. Now they also check, along with that protrusible wastes, they check the following items for reported bird hazards: 1. previous complaints; 2. inspection reports; 3 . the Airman Information Manual; 4. airports listed by FAA as having bird hazards; 5 . bird strike incident reports . Reviewed this ' with FAA: 1. there are no complaints at the Tri-County Airport; 2. Airport is not currently listed in the Airman' s Information Manual or by FAA as having a bird hazard; 5 . not a single bird strike incident report from the Tri-County Airport. Now if there are items under these five which I just discussed with you, complaints or uh strike reports, then they'd go to criteria number three. Uh, and that criteria is if there ' s a reported bird hazard, then we go to number three, and their criteria is if this in an uncontrolled bird population then it can be a hazard and would not comply. EPA' s opinion, if operating wi , the od, and you have an on-site inspection to determine periodic cover and you do deny the food, to keep birds away, you can be -104- in compliance. If you ' re not currently operating, then they review your operating plan for periodic cover requirements to eliminate the food source. It was Mr. Yeagley' s opinion that if there is no reported bird hazard at this site, and there is none, then the facility complies. If there is a reported hazard, then if Colorado Landfill complies with the operating plans for daily cover, the facility will comply, as this eliminates the problem in almost all cases except certain areas such as island, uh streams and tributaries. I will submit for the record the EPA Guidance Manual on uh Bird Hazards. Now also, I 'd like to submit for your record, and I don' t know if uh, the Clerk to the Board has had an opportunity to submit his letter to you, it' s dated November 22, 1979. It' s from Dr. Maynard Stamper, professor of zoology emeritus, University of Northern Colorado, a member of the Audubon Society, highly respected authority on birds. I would like to read that to you. ' In order to evaluate possible bird hazard to aircraft at any location, it is essential to consider the make-up of the environment in the vicinity of the airport or air park and how the birds are affected by the present and possible future changes in the environment. In the case of the southwest Weld County landfill, the question is, how would the presence of a landfill operation affect the bird population in the vicinity of the Erie Air Park runway located approximately one mile plus from the proposed landfill site? Bird activities and the size of bird populations may be considered under the following headings and each group of factors evaluated for their influence on the bird population and the effect on the hazard to aircraft for the Erie Air Park facility. 1 . Feeding , nesting, and resting activities near the site; 2. Roosting, night gathering activities near the site; 3 . Flocking, and fall and spring migration near the site; 4. Human and predator activities that would affect the bird population count near the site; 5 . Whether permanent resident birds or the migratory or summer resident birds make up the greater part of the bird count. Ideally these factors would be evaluated over a period of four or more seasons and for more than one year , but the realities _1nR_ of the case are such that conclusions must be based on a general knowledge of bird behavior and response to changes in the environment. In considering the above topics in relation to any airport, it must be further considered whether the bird population density is greater, less, or the same as the population density in the area of the landfill facility when compared to the surrounding areas ' . I might, as an aside from this letter, this is a part of the EPA guidance manual. Their criteria is, if the landfill has no more birds than the surrounding area, then it is in compliance. Returning to the letter, ' in the case of attractants listed as feeding, nesting, and resting around Erie, Colorado, the cultivated lands with its rich supply of worms, insects, grasses and grain as well as the irrigation ditches and reservoirs furnish a plentiful supply of food for the various birds that migrate through or reside permanently in the area. It would have to be considered that the waterfowl: ducks, geese, coots, the wading or shore birds, herons , bitterns, "abicates" , and so forth, are well supplied with food from these sources and that shallow-water feeders and plow-followers; franklins, gulls, puddle ducks and • so forth feed on insects and worms in the margins of reservoirs, ditches, and ponds related to agriculture in the area. Coal Creek which runs parallel to one of the runways for one-half to three-quarters of a mile furnishes additional food supplies. All of the above mentioned birds are migratory or summer residents and would influence the safety of the air park mostly by their flocking activities, morning and evening feeding flights, or by disturbances associated with junk shooting or migratory flocking and would not be affected by the presence of a landfill. The small transient population of rainbill gulls and California gulls live mostly on carp for their mainstay of diet. Under the circumstances of a landfill operated according to regulations and rules laid down by the state and federal government agencies, it seems that the population of these species would not be affected either positively or negatively by the presence of a landfill operation. Concerning the second topic of roosting activities, the ground roosting population : pheasants, larks , and so forth _1 n r_ would not be affected except in the immediate vicinity of the landfill. It would have little or no effect on the airport' s safety. Considering topic number three, flocking or migratory birds, it would appear that red-wing blackbirds from the marsh areas and starlings from feedlots, as well as local groups of ducks and geese might pose a flight hazard. This would be considered minimal in any case and not affected by the presence of a properly run landfill operation. Topic number four, human and predatory activities near the air facility might influence the safety factor negatively by causing flock movement and erratic flight patterns, by this disturbance, but probably to a small degree. Concerning topic number five as to whether permanent residents or migratory bird predominate in the area, it is undoubtedly true that any birds that might constitute a flight hazard are migratory and thus greatly minimize the danger to flight hazard if indeed one does exist. I have taught zoology and animal sciences at the University of Northern Colorado from 1954 to 1974, taught ornithology and bird behavior for at least eighteen of those years. I have B.S . , M.A. , Ph D degrees in • biological science, the latter from Ohio State University. I hopa that this report will lay it in your evaluation of the possible hazard to flight in present and future hearings on the subject of air safety at the Erie Air Park. Respectfully submitted, Dr. Maynard Stamper. ' I asked Dr. Stamper to write this letter when our landfill hearing was cancelled last week. He was prepared to testify, uh, no pun intended, but he was going south for the winter. I think Mr. Nelson has a few other rebuttal comments. VERN NELSON: There were some more questions brought up about the wind. Uh, I would like to just comment briefly on some additional information that might help you in your decision. The representative from Erie suggested that we had not considered the wind factors that might affect them. We did not do that in any specific statements, however the wind conditions are uh shown on the wind rows information that has been supplied. But I quickly reviewed the wind rows information and found that if , if we assume that the wind is blowing from this area to the -1n7_ east there's a large quadrant that would affect the Town of Erie. But in, in measuring the amount of wind that might blow in that direction, from a half circle, in other words from anywhere from this direction around to this direction, it amounts to just about one-third of the time when the wind exceeds the calms of four miles per hour. In other words, two-thirds of the time then it' s in the other quadrant blowing to the west, or to the east, I beg your pardon, to the east. Now I want to uh read some information about the wind rows . I spent some time with Dr. Jack E. Cermak, who is professor in charge and director of fluid dynamics and diffusion laboratories at Colorado State University. Dr. Cermak is a recognized expert in the field of wind engineering. I asked him to testify here today but his schedule was such that he could not. However we did discuss the various facets of of wind conditions. He is uh currently doing consulting services for Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southwest Power and Light, Cleve- land Light and Power, I know that in the past he has done consulting for the armed services. Dr. Cermak and I agree that wind conditions in like areas along the front range of the Rockies are subject to similar atmospheric or wind conditions. The proposed landfill site and the Jefferson County Airport are both located along the east side of the upslope which forms the edge of the major drainage of Coal Creek and its tributaries, approximately the same distance from the foothills, and at comparable elevations so far as wind conditions are concerned, in a region of extreme elevation differentials . We therefore believe that the wind rows developed for the Jefferson County Airport is sufficiently accurate for study of wind conditions at the proposed landfill site . I 've already stated uh about the period of time that wind records need to be kept in order that we can uh make, draw conclusions from wind conditions in the vicinity. It' s been stated more than once that my wind information is incorrect. Uh, I think that the Commissioners need to see wind record information that shows my information to be incorrect. The next item I want to address is runoff that will reach Coal Creek. I have reported on that, and 1 ,- to quickly dispel any rumors there, this is a part of the accepted report by the state health department in which I talk about runoff from the active fill areas. Temporary ponds will be provided with- in short distances, four hundred feet to one thousand feet of the base of the active work, active working face of any fill, to catch all runoff from the face of the active fill. The ponds will be moved and maintained below the fill area as required to salvage active fill runoff. All water will be evaporated from the ponds prior to filling over. Runoff from completed and covered fill areas will drain away from active fill areas by virtue of the finished slope which is a requirement of the State Health Department. The noise questionz has been raised. Uh, I have commented on that earlier, that wind-carried odors and noise have been discussed. The noise level south probably not be increased in the area to the same extent that airplanes increase the noise level in and about an airport. Odors will be controlled, as will dust and noise in accordance with the dictate of the already approved development standards. Uh, we' re we plan to cover adequately on a daily basis to eliminate these problems . • Uh, further, with respect to noise and it escapes me, in my years fo involvement in engineering, I by the way have designed a few airports a few year back, not a jet port, but we get the airport designed, get it constructed and then all of a sudden the people move in all around it and complain about the noise and want a, want the airport moved. All of a sudden we have the airport right in the middle of an extensive development area. I , I agree with the Erie Comprehensive Plan that the citizens should be protected from noise, but yet they have an airport within the town limits . Such matters in my view are incongruent. I submit that the noise from the landfill operation would not exceed what the Erie people will experience from the other development. Noise from heavy equipment would certainly not carry a one and a half mile into the built up sections of Erie . I further submit that the equipment that would be used at the landfill would result in less noise than that required in the development area to develop at the projected rate that has been described here today which are required to build roads, streets, utilities, etc. Uh. The next item, the landfill use, the now-closed landfill, I stated earlier that it was our estimate twenty-five to thirty thousand people were using that facility. We established that number of people based upon the revenue that was collected from the operation prior to its closing. We do have those numbers . I couldn' t help but mention uh about the Lafayette Sewage Treatment Plant. Somebody mentioned that it produced potable water. It was never intended to produce potable water and I happen to know better than anybody else because I designed that plant and supervised its construction. And yes, it has a characteristic sewage treatment process odor that we' re never going to get rid of . One of the things that has been discussed at length today is that we didn' t want any changes in the atmospheric conditions in the area because of the uh testing procedures that are being accomplished by the NOAA people. Here again it' s a little diffi- cult for me to understand how we can expect to have no changes in the atmospheric conditions when we 're in the center of an area with one of the highest growth rates in the United States. There isn' t any question in anybody' s mind that if we're going to have considerable residential and extensive industrial development in the Town of Erie as projected, that is change, and development of any kind creates fugitive dust, that certainly is going to be a lot more uncontrolled that any dust that' s going to be developed as a result of the landfill. I ' d wish to also point out that solid waste disposal is a must for our society. There isn' t a one of us that doesn' t create solid waste. Now that' s going to be an inherent part of our atmospheric conditions and maybe that' s something that NOAA should be studying to benefit our citizenry even more . Now, in talking with uh Mr . Keirnes we 've agreed we would be glad to provide space and to cooperate with these people to locate their measuring devices on site if that would help in getting uh more, maybe even more complete results at their tower . We cannot deny that solid waste disposal is a part of our environmental situation. Dust abatement. We are in the process of establishing such a dust abatement program. Uh, this is being -110- accomplished through the county engineer ' s office. It is a requirement of our development standards that such be done. The numbers that were given to you by Dr. Baynton do not include, do not take into account the effect of any dust abatement program. Uh. Several uh points have been made about the possible new site at Brighton. We uh investigated that slightly, a new landfill site, I beg your pardon. As near as we can tell this new site is a seventeen acre site. It has not been certified to this time. I would suspect that the Department of Health is deeply concerned about any ground water contamination at this site, as they might be concerned about our uh safety problem as far as the operation of the airport is concerned at the Erie site. The point being that there is no site without very very serious problems along the way, and what we have to do is pick that one that would tend to fit the needs to the best advantage of the most people. Thank you. CHAIRMAN CARLSON : Mr. Nelson, there was some uh statements made today in regards to the old land use site being twenty acres. Wasn' t that a part and parcel of a larger parcel and there was no contract with Weld Landfill, with the owner, and the owner had it threatened to shut it down several times? VERN NELSON: Mr. Chairman, I , I 'm not really a part of that and Mr. Keirnes might be able to give you better information but I do know this, that there was a verbal agreement between Weld Landfill and the landowner to uh deposit solid waste on that site. The land owner owns, let me see, three hundred twenty and a hundred sixty, whatever that is, four hundred and eighty acres uh around three sides of this landfill site. And I know that there was discussion between the landfill, Weld Landfill, Inc. and the present owner in this verbal agreement to fill certain of the drain- ages in his four hundred and eighty acre tract. Where they were I don ' t know. I , I have no knowledge of that, but I do know that it started in that northeastern corner . CHAIRMAN CARLSON : Well what I 'm, getting at is that even though that may have only been a twenty eight, twenty acre designated parcel to be filled there will as was made, statement -111 - made today that you will only fill what, about a third to a half acre at a time, and it' ll be covered daily. So we would. . . . VERN NELSON: That' s all we' ll, that' s all we would have open at any one time during the day. There wouldn' t be anything open at, during the night. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Well, what I 'm saying is that you won' t be covering a hundred and sixty acres every day, it' ll be just merely VERN NELSON: Oh no. We're CHAIRMAN CARLSON: A third to a half VERN NELSON: We're going to work a very small area. It will progress through a portion of the hundred and sixty acres, uh. In our submission of operations plan we had to, we designated a certain area that, and I would, I would guess off hand it' s about a third of the total area, would not receive any fill at all because of the high subsidence hazard. (Not distinguishible due to coughing) and this comes as a result of geologic studies that we've made. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Are there any other questions of the, the applicant? Is there anybody else in the audience want to . . . Mr. Lind, do you have anything else? KENNETH LIND: Just a few concluding remarks, . . . . NORMAN CARLSON: All right. KENNETH LIND: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, very briefly I want to comment concerning a few of the items brought forward by Mr. Hegarty for NCAR. I think the representative from Colorado Department of Health has answered our questions this morning, I don' t think it need any further debate. When you really put this in the light of this operation is that of a private enterprise by seven individuals versus the interest of the public. Well, I think since Mr. Hegarty hasn' t been involved in this over the last six months he probably doesn ' t realize that Colorado Landfill operates in Weld County subject to a very extensive, very complete contract with Weld County. Weld County sets the rate , has set our- operations procedures, even closing and opening of certain sites , where sites are to be located. -112- Call this a private enterprise really begs the issue . It' s for citizens of Weld County, it' s at your direction, there are powers for you to withdraw that contract if we' re not operating to your standards. We're closer to a quasi public utility than a public enterprise in any means. You check our profits, financial statements, everything goes through your staff. And the comment' s made, this operation is incompatible. I would agree that it' s incompatible unless it' s operated properly. Everything that' s been presented from the Weld County Health Department, the State Health Department, the EPA, their whole item is to operate these property to ellev, to alleviate citizen complaints with them because EPA, everybody has recognized that landfills are a very serious problem for the United States. We don ' t have them, they haven' t been operated properly. That' s part of the reason for the federal government coming in. Now the reference was made for need. I did talk to Mr. Jim Considine, Adams County Planning Department. He commented this site is seventeen acres and it' s one mile from the South Platte River in a flood plain. He said it' s got some very very serious problems. Hardly seventeen acres is not at all adequate for the needs of Adams County or anything. Now you start asking, what alternatives have you head today? I don' t think we 've heard any alternatives . Comment is, yes we need this facility but put put it somewhere else. Uh. We don' t want it near us . Well it' s very interesting because it was no more than a. month ago we had Windsor, who has a a landfill a mile and a half from town, and I would point out uh Ms. Packard-- Seeburger, that the growth of Windsor has been going in all directions from Windsor. Some of the major growth has been south of Windsor, out towards the landfill. The site is visible from Windsor, it' s there. Property values have skyrocketed in Windsor . I question where her alleged information concerning the down, the, the downward trend of values caused by the landfill. Perhaps she was unaware that property near the Greeley-Milliken landfill that three years ago was purchased for two hundred thousand dollars, that same property sold this year for two hundred fifty thousand dollars after removing a hundred thousand -112_ dollars worth of water. So that property went up almost a hundred and fifty thousand dollars in two years, and it' s directly adjoining the landfill. (Tape Change #79 - 149) CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Okay. KENNETH LIND. Okay. There ' s been no downward trend in values. Again unless you' re not operating properly. Now another question, here we' re projecting Erie ten thousand population. Well, my question to you --- where do ten thousand people send their solid wastes? Was the. Sixty Minutes the other night pointed out the average American has one thousand pounds of waste a year that must go to landfills. So we have one thousand pounds from ten thousand people at Erie. Well if we don't have landfill located near Erie, where do they go? We don' t have another landfill designated in southwest Weld County, so fine, they drive fifteen miles up to Longmont if that site is still open or maybe to the Greeley site--forty, forty-five, fifty miles. ' Now you talk about economic waste, environmental waste, the gas necessary for that, and where' s all that traffic going to be going? Right past the NCAR tower -- every bit of it, cause we don' t have a landfill in the area. How about the surrounding areas? Where do they take their wastes? Again, no alternatives whatsoever have been presented to you. Mr. Nelson has commented about the noise issue and I just find it inconceivable that an individual can complain about noise when he lives right by an airport. You talk about safety hazards --- there are hazards other than birds to aircraft. Uh. snowstorms . You can see collisions --- there were several last week. You have an airport near a city, a residential development, you ' re just asking for trouble , there ' s no question about it. Now I think the important question is you 've heard facts and you 've heard a lot of hypotheticals . Well maybe there ' s a bird problem. Nobody ' s proved there ' s a bird problem. There hasn ' t been at the old landfill , an open refuse there . In fact you can go down there right now and look. That site has a considerable -114- amount of uncovered trash. There ' s still no bird problem even though it' s uncovered. So in this area even operating the facility not in compliance with laws does not create a problem for you. There ' s been no odor complaint, no noise complaint by Erie, by an existing landfill that' s operated, let' s put it bluntly, not worth a damm over the last ten years . So here we have an operation that' s going be operated in compliance. There ' s a very simple fact here. The Resource Conservation Recovery Act of 1976 for the first time gives specific author- ization for individuals of the public to file a lawsuit. If we' re not operating this landfill site properly, if we ' re not operating Greeley, any site it only takes one individual to come after us and say 'you' re not operating property, close down' . The County Commissioners have that authority. The State Health Department has that authority. So there there are more people that can close this operation down if it' s not being operated in compliance. Very simply, we must operate in compliance with the laws. If we do, you' re not going to have those problems. , If we don' t operate it in compliance, close the operation down. Thank you \ery much. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Thank you, Mr. Lind. Is anyone else in the audience who would want to comment? Is any discussion of the commissioners? KENNETH LIND: Ah, Mr. Chairman, pardon me for interrupting. There ' s a letter that was I don ' t know again if it' s been submitted to you but it should be for the record. One from Brite 'N Best Rubbish Service and one from the City of Brighton. I don' t know if copies have been made available to you. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: I believe we received one from &rite 'N Best this morning and the other one from the City of Brighton last week . KENNETH LIND: Okay. CHAIRMAN CARLSON : What ' s the date of that one from the City of Brighton? KENNETH LIND : Uh . It ' s November 14 . _1l CHAIRMAN CARLSON: I believe we got that one last week. COMMISSIONER ROE: Mr. Chairman, it, today has been a long day. We've received a great deal of information and a great deal of testimony. It' s very difficult to sit here and listen to everything we 've heard today and try to sift out the pertinent information we need to make a decision. Therefore I would move that we take this deci, we close testimony on this issue and take the decision under advisement for the regular Board meeting one week from today. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Is there a second to that motion? COMMISSIONER DUNBAR: I would second it, being not all of our Board members are here also, and I think we should CHAIRMAN CARLSON: I think Commissioner Kirby should have the opportunity to listen to the tape if he so desires. If he wants to take COMMISSIONER DUNBAR: Yeah, Right. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: This will give him the opportunity also COMMISSIONER ROE : Sure he' ll be thrilled CHAIRMAN CARLSON: If we wants to sit through the tape for four hours. Is there any discussion on the motion? Moved by Leonard Roe, seconded by Lydia Dunbar to take this matter under advisement and make a decision one week from today at the regular Board meeting. Any discussion on the motion? All in favor say aye. COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: Opposed, nay. So carried. Thank everybody for coming and Mr. Fortner? GARY FORTNER: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest one thing. There was a lot of documents referred to, a lot of studies referred to, a lot of lettersreferred to today (Not Audible) should be left here so it' s within the record of the Board. CHAIRMAN CARLSON : I think we have most of it GARY FORTNER: (Not Audible) any of that. Make sure we ' ve got in on record. CHAIRMAN CARLSON: I ' ll agree with that. If there ' s -116- any that you have to leave it, appreciate leaving that with, with Clerk to the Board. • • -117- Hello