HomeMy WebLinkAbout921264.tiff (r
rr
"; a ?7
CLE
September 29, 1992
Weld County
Board of County Commissioners
915 10th Street
Greeley, CO 80631
Attn: George Kennedy
Please find attached a copy of a letter from Mr. Scott Brownlee,
Planner, Colorado Department of Aviation, Division of
Aeronautics, to Mr. Ted Melland of the FAA stating the current
position of the Colorado Division of Aeronautics regarding the
Laidlaw South Landfill expansion. We understood the county' s
position on the approval of Laidlaw' s expansion request was
based on the approval of the FAA and the Colorado Department
of Aviation with regard to safe operations at Tri County airport
and current federal and state regulations regarding proximity
of airports to landfills. We consider this to be most important
in following up that aspect of the approval you granted for
Laidlaw' s expansion at their south landfill .
Thank you for your reconsideration of this matter.
Sinc rely,
C
Dennis and Ju Wiley
125 Stearman Court
Erie, CO 80516
61-\'\?
76 921264
vo ( 01 �1 PI 6445 cc to , 11C.
STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF AVIATION ,.oF.coto
ti� 9y
6848 S. Revere Parkway, Suite 101 :
Englewood, CO 80112-6703 $j
(303) 397-3039
FAX 397-3042 +`ra]6`*
Roy Romer
Governor
nnis
September 18, 1992 DirectorE. Roberts
Mr. Ted Melland
Federal Aviation Administration
Northwest Mountain Region
System Management Branch, ANM-536
1601 Lind Avenue, S.W.
Renton, WA 98055-4056
Ref: 92-ANM-0524-OE
Dear Mr. I�v efind:
After review of the proposed expansion of the Laidlaw Landfill near Tri-County Airport, it appears this
expansion would pose a hazard to air navigation and approval is not recommended.
Based on an evaluation of the information provided for the landfill, latitude of N. 40-01-33, longitude of W. 105-
01-32 and an overall elevation of 5334' MSL, this proposal would violate Federal Aviation Regulation(FAR)
Part 77. Specifically, the proposal would penetrate the FAR 77.23(a)(5)horizontal surface(77.25)(a) by
approximately 33 feet.
According to Colorado Revised Statutes 28-6-113 (2)-Safe Operating Areas Around Airports-Establishment:
'GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES WITH ZONING AND BUILDING PERMIT AUTHORITY SHALL
ADOPT AND ENFORCE, AT A MINIMUM, RULES AND REGULATIONS TO PROTECT THE LAND
AREAS DEFINED IN 14 C.F.R. Part 77.'
There has been some discussion regarding the proximity of waste disposal sites to airports, and resultant bird
activity. This issue may need to be reviewed as well.
I hope this information will be given careful consideration and if the Division of Aeronautics can provide any
further assistance, feel free to contact us.
Sincerely,
2,„it
Scott J. Brownlee, Planner
CDOT-Division of Aeronautics
cc: Dave Osednik, Golden Engineering Assoc.
Chase Stockon, Denver Regional Council of Govt.
FAA Denver ADO
Dennis Wiley, Erie Air Park Home Owners Assoc.
Craig Nahring, Manager Erie Air Park
3033536712 ' '=HL 113 P01 SEP 29 '92 16:06
!roil; . . .
us0eaor+mmr _...7 u
fn 9onspo lotion 1
Federal Aviation
7 R..1. . ....„:.
� ' A4RP 2 9 5}�„;T .il
Administrationallot' Iri[
DF.N7 ft i A) +1<R' 92-ANM-0524-•al
Wald CountyPlanning
'
DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION
Laidlaw Waste Systems (Colorado) Ihe, CONSTRUCTION LOCATION
1441 Weld County Read 6 ataa«Rtrl
P.O. Sox 320
Erie, Colorado 80516 Slien Colorado
Attnt Rick Hof than • urntgi toerannax
"— 40'01'33' 105'01'32^
CONtruic ION DatMa•7gN
•
PROts0ato Landfill
wontnwteen
MOW OROUND Mart Oft
154' 5334'
Anaeronaul:eat Shah'0leV0foPosedconatructiendescribed&bite has been completed under the provisions of Pan 77 of ma Federal Aviation
Regulations.Beate on ma study in is found that the constrecbon would nave no substantial sayesst Oleo on the sale and efficient utilisation of
the newgable airspace by aircraft or on Ih'0peration of air navigation facilities.Therefore.pursuant 10 the aulhonty fNlegaleel to me kris hereby
determined that the construction would not be a retard to air navigation provided the lstOwrng conditions are mat:
Conditions:
SEE REVERSE .
SuPaNmentaf notice of coretn+dtion a required any emir the prgeCt is abandoned(use the Incased FAA form).or
O, At least ire hours before the start a construction+luse the snelgeed FM brat).
0 Within five days after the ccnsiruellon reaahat its greatest height lute the enclosed FAA fermi
r'+e delerminppn aapky on )larch 25, 1994
•la)e&nnded,levtaad a l i ed by tie Wilms:
tot�clon{str�uction a subject to me scenting authoritylol*li fl9Wlal rmm�bls isaa ona_..;,,i,.,...s an
pretMlbadfbyIINO F r fo mails
ii...1.1 o44.f'or MOO to above exprretbn data In such ease bite determination�noioirre pn me date
NOTaI RWI WIitel brextensiontrcc t re coma senatruction,or on the an the FCC denies the application
prior to Me expifsiion date period clods determination must WpwifMrkad 0rdNivenotolMrasu'RpemGyaast t5daya
• This determination is suede to review Han Interested Piny life)a Peter On et titre October 23, 1992 in one
event a petition ler review'efib•It Should be submitted n triplicate tome manager. Flagnt Iniorr,at,on and Obstrueecs Branch. MT.210.
Federsi Aviation Administration.WUMnglon,O C.20501 and contain it lull statement of sty baba upon which d is made
This deteminetion bittern*fin*on November 04, 1992 the dyerfnma0on will net become final pending dispoetyen of the;Odor.interested panted will petition
needled'�a IS he die ofd.in
ease
An account of the study findings,aeronautical oblations. t any remote.
this met*will be found on the following t11ee0a1s,if any.rtglttaredwllh site FM during are study,end tee basis for She FM'sdeeielM in
If the structure k fub)eet b the tee Papelah.
This delarmiMtim,based In eeror authority 01 the FCC,a copy Of ass dNerm nylon will De sent to that Agency.•
• with FAA Pei 77.cu'c*rns the'Heat of this Prep**on the cafe and efficient wee(the navigable
elfeWce by aircraft and does net relieve the sponsor of any compliance responsibilities fettling,to any law,ordinange,or regulation Of any
Pedant,Start of local government body,
i 1121
j�9�7�
•
Post-it bran fax transmittal memo 7671 0 o pages e
•
TsL,Qvwel( `t",CR6 b OY7S
Co. ca
•
equip 'led Nalland Dept Phone.
3.r.3 G 700
.5'Z D 2_17_ axe Fax 3 34-3 61/1--
,
•
'Ouzo* Seattle, Washin en •oR September 25, 1992
a
•
IAA Ilene 74sall It HI WlrTr ,c 1.R Y,..1,.11,.1..1..
PA nilkS IOiC.Y 7 �• 3- i •
Z333536712 1PHL 013 P02 SEP 29 '92 16:07
Aeronautical Study No.
92-ANM-0524-0E
The FAA has completed review of the proposal with initial consideration given
to the potential impacts as an obstruction to air navigation. During the
study several comments from the. public were received expressing concern for
instrument approach procedures, and normal VFR operations. These are routine
evaluations for any aeronautical study. The aeronautical study disclosed the
following:
1. The closest point of the landfill would be 5400 feet northeast of Tri
County Airport. It would penetrate the airport horizontal surface by 33 feet.
It would be outside the traffic pattern airspace area for category A aircraft,
the primary aircraft at the airport. It would be sited at the edge of the
traffic pattern airspace area for category 8 aircraft. However pilots
following FAA recommendations for traffic pattern operations would not be
impacted by the landfill because they would climb to within 300 feet of the
traffic pattern altitude before commencing a turn. Therefore, an aircraft
remaining in the traffic pattern would be at least 5,700 feet MSL, or 366 feet
above the landfill before turning toward it. Similarly, pilots would not
descend until near the approach end of the landing runway, thus not being
impacted.
2. The VOR/DME-A approach procedure descends to traffic pattern and circle to
land altitude of 6,000 MSL. As described above, pilots operating according to
FAA recommendations would not be impacted by the landfill .
3. The landfill proprietor advises that fill is continuously covered as a
normal process. It would seem that such operations would disturb birds enough
to discourage them from the area, and that birds would not be attracted to a
.covered area during periods when fill is not ongoing. A study prepared by the
Colorado Department of Health in 1982, resulted in a similar conclusion. A
review of FAA Order 5200.5A regarding this situation also concluded with no
FAA objection.
Therefore, we have determined that the proposal will not have substantial
impact on aviation, and would not be a hazard to air navigation.
S 29 '92 16:02 3033536712 PRGE. 002
Hello