HomeMy WebLinkAbout800447.tiff_ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
Colorado
Department of Frank A. Traylor, Jr., M.).
Health ,eM „,.sR�
�t,t �� ' Executive Director
4210 East 11th Avenue C
Denver, Colorado 80220
Phone(303) 320-8333 �
Oar-
es, ,0-0. January 15, 1980
Mr. Norman Carlson, Chairman
Weld County Board of County Commissioners
915 10th Street
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Dear Mr. Carlson:
In letters to you of November 20, 1979 and December 13, 1979, this Department
indicated that approval of the Erie Landfill could be recommended conditional
upon routine operations at the Erie Airpark being restricted to piston aircraft
only. Subsequent actions by the Board of County Commissioners have attempted,
but failed, to meet this condition.
Following our second letter reaffirming the Department's recommendation that the
landfill and jet or turbojet operations at the Erie Airpark not exist simultane-
ously, I discussed the matter with Mr. Cecil Wagner of the Denver Office of the
Federal Aviation Administration to determine if, in FAA's judgement, the actions
taken by the Board would sufficiently reduce bird hazards to aircraft and, if
not, whether FAA could restrict jet aircraft operations at the Erie Airpark.
Mr. Wagner cited his concurrence with the position put forth by Mr. William V.
Vitale of FAA's Washington Office (copy enclosed) . In essence our discussion
resulted in two determinations:
1) As long as the few jet aircraft which are currently based at the Erie
Airpark continue to be based there, notations in the Airman's Manual,
which would be adequate warning to visiting aircraft, would not preclude
risk to personnel aboard the jet aircraft operating routinely out of the
Erie Airpark. Non-jet aircraft would, of course, not be subject to
excessive risk in accordance with the FAA Guidelines from landfill
operations at the Erie site.
2) The FAA has no power to restrict operations at the Erie Airpark since
it is privately owned and no FAA funding is involved.
Based on this review, the Department concludes that any bird hazard to aircraft
that may potentially evolve with respect to the Erie Landfill/Erie Airpark has
not been precluded by the Board's attempt to implement the Department's recom-
mendation.
PL0631
000447
Page Two
Mr. Norman Carlson
January 15, 1980
Therefore, our initial disapproval of the application for a Certificate of
Designation for the Erie Landfill must stand since the proposed landfill would
violate EPA zoning restrictions and you have failed to demonstrate that opera-
tion near a landfill with the associated bird attraction potential would not
constitute a nuisance. Compliance with applicable zoning restrictions and
operation in a manner to minimize nuisance conditions is required by paragraphs
(1) (c) and (1) (e) of Section 3 of the Department's regulations pursuant to the
Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities Act.
Sincerely,
es E. Martin, Ph.D. , Chief
Hazardous and Solid
Wastes Section
JEM:baw
Enclosure
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
NOV : a
WASHINGTON, U.C. 20591
V YAy/ %
E1
rvicrrs
Mr. Orval Stoddard al&
Senior Public Health Engineer t a.
Colorado Department of Health
4210 E 11
Denver, Colorado 80220
Dear Mr. Stoddard:
This letter is a follow up to your telephone conversation with my staff
on November 5 regarding the siting of a solid waste disposal facility
near the Tri-County Airpark Airport, Erie, Colorado. The Federal Aviation •
Administration (FAA) considers solid waste disposal sites as being an
incompatible land use near airports because of the safety hazards created
by birds attracted to solid waste to feed. Our position in this matter is
stated in the enclosed FAA Order 5200.5, FAA Guidance Concerning Sanitary
Landfills on or Near Airports.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) shares our concern for safe,
compatible land use. On September 13, 1979, EPA published a final rule
providing minimum criteria for determining how solid waste dispoal
facilities and practices pose a reasonable probability of adverse effects
on health or the environment. The EPA regulation is also a standard to be
applied by the Federal district courts in determining whether parties have
engaged in acts that violate the prohibition of open dumping under the'
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976. While this rule'
does not specifically prohibit solid waste facilities within the dist ce
criteria of 10,000 feet for airports serving turbojet aircraft and 5, 0
feet for piston driven aircraft, EPA's definition of "bird hazards" will
restrict putrescible waste disposal within the distance criteria. At
Tri—County Airpark, it is expected that birds will use the disposal - .;
facility to feed, increasing the likelihood of bird/aircraft collisions. 4
I nave enclosed a copy of the EPA's rule and call your attention to the
supplementary information provided in the Federal Register (Vol. 44, No. 179,
Thursday, September 13, 1979) .
To further clarify the FAA's policy on compatible land use, some explana-
tion on how the 10,000-foot distance criteria was developed may be helpful.
Biological studies document the fact that solid waste disposal landfills
receiving putrescible waste can be attractive to birds. The birds usually
associated with landfills are gulls, blackbirds, starlings, crows, ravens,
and pigeons. These same birds are frequently involved in bird collisions
with aircraft. In 1973 and 1974, the FAA evaluated bird strike data,
re
�� 'k -..A4444
��> 1u.iYA1.11 +Leh.'N•II�M(rLM:ASielAi^4ak3444P•71/ I i..efte1N1 Noriciworsredrioarrsowi, wia al q.'iY1 wnoMrg...•
hilINOMM
• •
2
•
aircraft maneuvering airspace requirements and bird flight altitude data. 4, %9r':a. a:
cXf f;i4•
Observations of birds flying from feeding areas to loafing or roosting
sites showed that the birds generally remained below 500 feet in altitude. . _
This 500-foot altitude also corresponds to aircraft altitudes for certain
instrument approaches and a point where, below this altitude, greater
numbers of bird strikes occurred.
Since the aircraft is closer to the ground during approach than during
takeoff, the landing airspace was used in developing the criteria. An imisimas
aircraft on an approach flies a 2-1/2 to 3 degree glide slope. At
500 feet above the ground, the aircraft is approximately 10,000 feet
horizontal distance from the runway. Other altitudes and distances
were considered; however, the 10,000-foot criterion represents a
compromise distance that gives the necessary margin of safety without
requiring land use control over a broad area. The fact that the
landfill can be 5,000 feet closer at airports serving only piston
type aircraft relates directly to aircraft use and performance. The
small piston aircraft fly at slower speeds, requiring less maneuvering INre>MW
airspace when operating near an airport. - '�'+'�
Since the issuance of the order on October 16, 1974, subsequent bird
strike data supports the assumptions used in developing the distance
criteria. Using 1978 data as an example, 788 bird strikes were
reported to the FAA. Where birds were identified, 43.4 percent were
gulls and 11. 3 percent were starlings or blackbirds, the sane birds
that are frequently found at solid waste disposal facilities.
Altitude data supports the 500-foot altitude used in developing the '
order, with 62.3 percent of reported bird strikes occurring at or
below 500 feet. Had a 1,000-foot altitude been used in developing
the distance criteria for the order, the additional altitude would •
t !r- -- -
have produced only a 7.3 percent further reduction in bird strikes.
Data from other countries further support the order's distance
criteria. We consider the distance criteria to be a minimum distance
necessary to ensure a necessary margin of safety for aircraft when
solid waste facilities must be located near airports.
The EPA rulemaking under RCRA and our FAA Order 5200.5 are both
designed to provide compatible land use around airports. The 5,000
and 10,000-foot distance criteria should be used by state, county,
and municipal governments in master planning and zoning for 44irport
safety. We would necessarily object to any issuance of an operating A1111
permit for a landfill within 10,000 feet of an airport serving turbo-
jet aircraft and consider any such solid waste disposal facility •
detrimental to aviation safety.
1�4Y3
3iYi i" i:'R ...+;�a+ ..•7 i. n� .a7" -T:TSrr,:z ..47:. V �,f :.� TM,;•. ._.,F_.,-4,...y4_.w...,,,,,X9,.
3 t"
If we may provide any further i.nfornation on bird hazards to you and
your staff, do not hesitate to contact me or Mike Harrison, our bird
hazard specialist, by calling (202) 426-3061.
Sincerely, • •
r4"-
WILLIAM V. VITALE '
Acting Director
Office of Airport Standards
Enclosures
f•.4
K
V
1,r
L
'ice � i �`� ]S tl � L y L 1•"'i y.{t 4 7 � � i
• �, y ;'r'd �." u. R d �� �Ys " y r s 9f
+• .is •'c� r e _ i}. r y :.}�• ..{,.,qar• t,y{aq' -- e .. .
Hello