The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About900322.tiff RESOLUTION RE: REJECT PROPOSED GREELEY-WELD COUNTY AIRPORT MASTER PLAN WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and WHEREAS, a joint hearing between the Weld County Commissioners and the Greeley City Council, was held in the Chambers of the Board on April 12, 1990, at 7:00 p.m. , to consider the Greeley-Weld County Airport Master Plan, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners heard all the testimony and statements of those present, and determined that said Plan would be considered at its regular Board meeting of April 16, 1990 , and WHEREAS, at its regular Board meeting of April 16, 1990, the Board deemed it advisable to continue this matter to a future date, and WHEREAS, after additional study and review the Board deemed it advisable that this matter be considered at its regular Board meeting of June 20 , 1990 , and WHEREAS, at its regular Board meeting of June 20, 1990, Commissioner Lacy moved to accept the proposed Greeley-Weld County Airport Master Plan. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Kennedy; however, on a roll call vote the motion failed 4-1 , with Commissioner Lacy voting aye. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, that the proposed Greeley-Weld County Airport Master Plan be, and hereby is, rejected. 900322 l Page 2 RE: AIRPORT MASTER PLAN The above and foregoing Resolution was adopted on the 20th day of June, A.D. , 1990. A1 BOAR OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTEST: ‘77)921214-4A114- WEL OUNTY, COLORADO Weld County Clerk and Recorder 'A and Clerk to the Board ene R. Brantner, Chairman BY - ,L. ilz---nA : a ( ,J Gunned Pro-T eputy County 1erk �� g ennedy, APPROVED AS TO FORM: Constance L. Har ert C.W. Ki y —" County Attorney dor . L y 900322 NOTICE A joint hearing between the Weld County Commissioners and the Greeley City Council will be held in the Chambers of the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, First Floor, Greeley, Colorado, on April 12, 1990 , at 7 :00 p.m. Said hearing concerns the Greeley-Weld County Airport Master Plan and the closure of certain portions of Weld County Roads 64 and 62 (Bliss Road. ) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO BY: MARY ANN FEUERSTEIN COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER AND CLERK TO THE BOARD B Q711 7a .�Y }t±tcouj Deputy PUBLISHED : April 5 , 1990 , in The New News April 4 , 1990 , in the Greeley Tribune Notices of this heatsng were mailed first class on Ap,il 2, 1990, to the following: SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS - AIRPORT DPG Bird Farm, Incorporated 12150 East Briarwood, Suite 200 Englewood, CO 80111 Noffsinger Manufacturing P.O. Box 488 Greeley, CO 80632 M.E. and Daisy E. Davidson Route 4, Box 174 Greeley, CO 80631 .S Weld County Centennial Center Complex Greeley, CO 80631 Duane and Dorothy Zabka 617 6th Street Greeley, CO 80631 E. Lee Frudden, et al. dba Land Resources Group 620 Hillview Court Fort Collins, CO 80526 Fred J. Winters Fred J. Winters, Trustee 4925 West 4th Street Greeley, CO 80634 Fred J. and Ann Winters, Heirs of 4925 West 4th Street Greeley, CO 80634 Fairmeadows Liquidation Trust 800 8th Avenue, Suite 333 Greeley, CO 80631 Claus B. Sternberg Lee S. Bublitz 5302 South Franklin Circle Littleton, CO 80121 Karen Lynne Rossman, et al. c/o Mary Stoll 2115 14th Street Road Greeley, CO 80631 900322 P.O.80X 758—GREELEY.COLORADO 80632 ,✓,,, -y--.a.ter= or` • a t0 QC > Z D mu nom 7 C 90m M n• m o z 0 m 1J Rf o • t -o ro • • x rn O g O rt .. O •,• tt. NOTICE A joint hearing between the Weld County Commissioners and the Greeley City Council will be held in the Chambers of the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, First Floor, Greeley, Colorado, on April 12, 1990, at 7:00 p.m. Said hearing concerns the Greeley-Weld County Airport Master Plan and the closure of certain portions of Weld County Roads 64 and 62 (Bliss Road. ) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO BY: MARY ANN FEUERSTEIN COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDER AND CLERK TO THE BOARD De uty PUBLISHED: April 5 , 1990 , in The New News April 4, 1990, in the Greeley Tribune 71/ /71;/.77,14..-1-70.7,.' -.) 4 52 9C0322 , City Council will beerdheld In of Cmarng mbers of the L'maddulooners of Weld ado. Weld Cot Ceunst tteer 9915 10th Street• Apr71 12, 1990, at 7:0 Colorado, id p.m. eld hearing concert the a Greeley-Weld the closure Airpof certain Peons o[ Weld .Courtly Roads 69 and 02 (Bliss Road.) BOARD OF CO NU Ty BY:MARC >�dUEI Nt RECORDER�ANDC CLERK TO THE BOARD BY: Teams me Mr8 I, Me m IDs 1 5 5 i\ %,,1/4_,... co, c------( Na, I o K p).,D ,--- id___ 9CG322 + i IcJtcu'd / &XI/VC i)t 111111 a 4, ni rq , 6O, ?o c1 I d 6 .i L i) ( 2`,,StN7 -Q-1) �'�6 3 r u S WE:75'1- In av4 3S _00,97, t. V (J lJ , 1 , 1 C(f) 0;1577 i° I ell e i 11 ‘,,:\ / ( 1, ct-, j • n t1-6 , I r 35? - gSoo �� Pe t14'^ JO -4"r9c>H r 4 co 639921V 51: 7-)(916 6AOo 2/ (° Y6.62 f it F, o , Bo q-Q---7 LARRY CAMPBELL 74"*0l`1CO go I, (r Director, Energy Operations - / COORS ENERGY COMPANY }�a.A.,, tormJ -- />n" `.`-"�� 13495 W.G.Road 461 P O.Box 467 1 //�1�.{/�� _ l( 'd'�Z'�/J� Keansburg,Colorado 00643 Golden,Colorado 80402 /•Zf�- /1 1 ]/ (303)732-4261 (303)278-7030 _/ �/ �°(//` Mayor Morton Councillor Kinnick Councillor Brigden Councillor Crumb Councillor Boer Councillor Werking Councillor Plasters TENNIS 1. 0,3.E.CrS D;fes Lug ( rc rL-u no�b,e,/. Div . cw kj; cvi/ caLl 2 ( S. R ed tea Peru}I, /c/ owl Co 3)07/2- G,o73 3o3 - 397- So3 ? 30 vcinje bGeA/ //) e/ac(ou,5 .¢A'PdAL atuwv.v t44'o [An" 1,.?e - x 1,Ar � ( Za yp( ) 4 ` 17-- 157 ,�s�2E f8V ,0322 PAGE 2 City of Greeley 1000 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Fermin L. and Carmen G. Rodriguez 2544 East 8th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Robert D. and Elnora 0. Bliss P.O. Box 816 Greeley, CO 80632 Rose Bonertz c/o 0pdyke Agency 1309 10th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 Charles W. Bliss Kinikinik Ranch 40738 Poudre Canyon Bellvue, CO 80512 Florence F. Bickling 21308 Weld County Road 64 Greeley, CO 80631 Melvin T. Bickling 604-1 /2 South Columbus Yuma, CO 80759 Glenn. D. and Elizabeth A. Cobarr Route 1, Box 22 Greeley, CO 80631 Zabka Farms 617 6th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Charles D. and Debra R. Bird 617 6th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Charles L. Warren Investment Company Denig Anne Warren Trust 2101 East 4th Avenue Denver, CO 80206 9C 0322 PAGE 3 Meryl J. & Gladys H. Coulson c/o First National Bank Trust Department P.O. Box 1058 Greeley, CO 80632 Greeley-Weld County Airport Authority P.O. Box 727 Greeley, CO 80632 John R. and Adolph Sitzman 1226 24th Avenue Court Greeley, CO 80631 Robert and Virginia Ann Feit Route 1, Box 98 Greeley, CO 80631 Thomas Mathew Ryan 9080 Illahee Road Northeast Bremerton, WA 98310 Wayne A. and Kris A. Howard 22577 Weld County Road 64-1/2 Greeley, CO 80631 RSW Farms, Incorporated c/o Mary E. Ratchiffe 3098 West 39th Avenue Denver, CO 80211 The Western Sugar Company 1700 Broadway, Suite 1600 Denver, CO 80290 Lyster Family Farms 22727 Weld County Road 64 Greeley, CO 80631 Natural Gas Assocation, Incorporated c/o MC Valuations Box 12278 12162 East Mississippi Avenue Aurora, CO 80012-3435 State Board of Agricultural State Service Building Denver, CO 80203 900322 PAGE 4 U.S. Experimental Potato Station P.O. Box 1167 Greeley, CO 80632 Hoshiko Farms, Incorporated 28607 Weld County Road 50 Kersey, CO 80644 Byers C. and Charlotte J. Clark 22505 Weld County Road 62 Greeley, CO 80631 Bill Branch 3180 East 18th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Howard D. and Lois A. Beck 2934 East 18th Street Greeley, CO 80631 William W. and Diane Y. McDonnell 3003 East 18th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Ronald C. and Lynn L. Pulley 3557 Burns Avenue Cheyenne, WY 82009 Henry and Herta D. Hilimanu Route 4, Box 182 Greeley, CO 80631 Robert W. and Viola F. Sanderson 3237 East 18th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Teresa J. Anderson 1799 Holly Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 Catherine W. Mathews c/o Mrs. Howard Roadifer 3791 East 18th Street Greeley, CO 80631 9‘..0322 PAGE 5 Ronald S. and Mary Jurgensmeier 2979 East 18th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Delvin J. Ahlschwede 2983 East 18th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Seth and Linda K. Jones, Jr. 8364 Brentwood Street Littleton, CO 80123 John S. Swallow 2723 23rd Street Greeley, CO 80631 Douglas G. and Sandra M. Howard 3226 East 18th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Dewey R. Marcy 1990 Hemlock Greeley, CO 80631 9c0322 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor of Greeley Greeley Councilmembers Weld County Commissioners FROM: Robert W. Noffsinger Jr.,(4 DATE: April 13, 1990 SUBJ: Aiport Master Plan Update Draft As promised, I am responding to some of what I consider less than factual and incorrect items in the "Airport Master Plan Update" dated March 26 , 1990. It appears our airport manager and airport authority have developed a wish list of good things for Greeley and Weld County . I wish good things for us too, but find it necessary to base my personal and corporate fiscal decisions on reality and sound predictions. In my opinion four alternatives were addressed, and the Alternative "B" is the poorest of the four. Although I favor part of Alternative "A", (extending our present runway to 8,500 feet total to the west) extending our present runway to the EAST merits serious consideration. My reasons for this are lengthy and I would be glad to discuss them with anyone interested. Also, an alternative to "DO NOTHING" for two years may be a viable option. INTRODUCTION Page I-1 The plan includes "recommended actions that will assist the airport sponsor in assuring long-term compatibility of the airport operations and the use of land in the airport influence area. " ?DOES IT? Page I-1 "The Greeley-Weld County Airport serves the City of Greeley, as well as the entire Weld County area. " IT DOES NOT. Western Weld uses Loveland-Ft. Collins and Ft. Collins downtown. Southwest Weld can use, Erie and Tri -County airports. The new Denver Airport will be very close for southern Weld County. Page I-1 "To fulfill its role for providing air transportation for the Greeley- Weld County area and the increasing FBO, business, student and visitor needs, airport improvements must continue. Response: The largest flight training school is leaving, another went out of business , leaving one school , with a new very small school starting up. FBO' s have decreased. Page I-4 "The Greeley-Weld County Airport has become a primary training facility and will continue to see an increase in student flight operations. " Response: FALSE Also in this section positive figures are continually overstated. Historically, this has been the case. This section is used to justify their pre-conceived conclusion. 90C322 Airport Memo April 13, 1990 Page 2 AIRPORT AND COMMUNITY PROFILE Page II-4 Our airport does not have a restaurant. We are unable to support one. We also lost an aircraft electronics shop to the smaller Ft. Collins downtown airport. Why? We must travel for electronic work. Page II-5 We have hangar facilities for 162 aircraft. I don't count 93 tied down. Some tied down are visiting aircraft. The 255 reported doesn't add up. Page II-6 "Nine structures currently are located within the 750 foot building restriction line and are proposed to be relocated or removed." Response: This is a waste and supports reconsideration. We should be able to live with a "Variance" as most do. Page II-6 "Any lengthening of runway 9 will cause the clear zone to overlap both Cherry Avenue and Bliss Road. " Response: Partially false and so what! This can be handled. Page II-7 Snow Removal Equipment "The Airport Authority owns 3 pieces of equipment which is used for snow removal ; these are: a dump truck with blade, a road grader, and a Hough Loader with blade. This equipment is old requiring continuous maintenance to keep in good working order. " Response: This is the most accurate statement in the master plan draft! IF We triple our surface area, needlessly, what will we need in manpower and equipment. Snow removal in my hangar area and taxiway is not great. I know they try and I don't complain ! Page II-9 We don 't have taxi lighting for our taxiways. Page II-10 The utilities section is interesting. What' s available compared to what is being utilized ! What about utilities two miles north? Page II-13 "Weld County is primarily used for agriculture. Weld County has the third largest land area of Colorado' s 63 counties and ranks first among counties in the state for agricultural productivity." Response: Should we adopt Plan "B" and create unbearable hardships on at lease 3 of the largest farming operations of "Pleasent Valley" which is the most productive and expensive farmland in our county as well as displace 2 families with a 40 year history on the land and 2 with an 80 year history? and disrupt over 300 acres, and close 2 critical and agriculturally vital county roads?? Page II-13 Student enrollment at UNC and Aims is 15,600. Flight training is reported to be approximately 150 students. Less than 1 %. Allowing them to use our facilities is one thing, but to create facilities for them is yet another issue. Also some Aims students are using Loveland/Ft. Collins. At least one of the Aims classroom instructors is doing flight training of students at Loveland/Ft. Collins. New flight training at Aims this quarter totals 5 students. 900322 Airport Memo April 13, 1990 Page 3 Page II-16 "The airport has sought to increase its role' in the economy through runway and building expansion, facilitating continuous planning to avoid land use conflicts in and around the airport. Response: Prudent planning in 1978 tried to address this . Plan "B" totally ignores it! Please read the last paragraph on Page II-18. Page III-4 In recent years, estimated annual general aviation operations at the Greeley-Weld Count Airport have declined. Response: TRUE! ! ! Page III-6 "Night training flights are conducted until midnight. " Response: Usually 1 or 2 nights a week. Section VII Financial Analysis Financing of this project is of great concern to me. The author suggests bonds. What will the public resonse be? The 16 million is projected in 1990$. At 4% annual inflation rate what are we looking at down the road runway? Other items to consider. There is less than 1% support of this project by our local flying public (my generous estimate) I attended the "PLan B" presentation at the "T-Bone Club and Greeley Rotary. " All I heard was negative responses (Totally) US West owns approximately 14 aircraft and helicopters for the western region. Their Gulfstream-4 is based at Centennial , second busiest airport in the state, by special permission as it is of greater gross weight than allowed by Aiport Authorityrestrictions. They own Falcons and could come to Greeley if wanted. I feel the G-4 is the only corporate jet of concern and probably makes up less than 2% of Corporate jets in existence today. Our runway length & strength is probably a corporate or insurance limitation rather than an aircraft manual limitation. I believe G-4' s have come into GXY. I had several questions for an FAA official . Unfortunately no one showed and Mr. Jaeger did not bring both of his hats ! (some humor intended) Over 800 signatures were gathered in a much less than half-hearted effort TOTALLY opposing ANY expansion at GXY. IF Monfort installs their own fuel farm on the airport, most of our revenue will drop from $1 .00 per gallon to .05 per gallon. Also, IF fuel sales is lucrative, FBO' s will want to compete with us. Great! But there went $100,000 profit to the Authority per year. FINALLY (HOORAY ! ) The bottom is is this needed is it practical is it prudent, fiscally responsible planning , or is it wishful thinking and dreaming and a self-fulfilling prophesy to benefit a few. 9C0322 Airport Memo April 13, 1990 Page 4 Thank you for joining together and taking a sincere look at our airport in general . Whatever the outcome, I feel you ' ve given it a good look, put it in perspective, and will decide accordingly. 900322 AGENDA AIRPORT MASTER PLAN HEARING April 12 , 1990 7:00 p.m. I. Call to Order: Gene Brantner, Chairman of Board of County Commissioners II . Roll Call A. Board of County Commissioners B. Greeley City Council III. Presentation of Master Plan by Fred Jaeger, Airport Manager and Isbill Associates, Inc. IV. Questions and Answers from Commissioners and Council Members V. Staff Comments from City or County Staff VI. Public Comments/Responses VII. Continue hearing to Board of County Commissioners Meeting, Monday, April 16, 1990 at 9:00 a.m. and City of Greeley Council Meeting, Tuesday, April 17, 1990 at 7:30 p.m. VIII. Adjournment 9 .0322 E x c r i + ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR NEW RUNWAY 17/35 COMPLEX AT GREELEY-WELD COUNTY AIRPORT DRAT • JAN 16 1990 Prepared by: Isbill Associates, Inc. January 1990 AISBILL ASSOCIATES, INC. AIRPORT CONSULTANTS . DENVER. COLORADO Sc0322 Oil and gas exploration is permitted on each 40 acre tract in the area of the new runways. Approximately three existing wells and two additional exploration sites will be effected. Actions to mitigate these wells will be developed by consulting the appropriate agencies. Economic Impacts The proposed actions arc expected to provide a short term stimulation to the local economy in the form of construction related activities (employment, material and service sales). Increased aircraft activity will increase the sales of various goods and services associated with airport activity such as fuel, aircraft maintenance and hangar spaces. The primary reason for these improvements to the airport is to provide a safe and adequate airfield that meets the criteria for heavier business aircraft and training aircraft using Greeley-Weld County Airport. This increased aircraft activity should help the airport self supporting and help to increase the economic base of the whole community. Transportation and Ground Acces; The major surface transportation route in the vicinity of Greeley-Weld County Airport is State Highway 263. The long range plans for 263 include shoulder widening and paving. This will increase the current right of way needs from 80 feet to ISO feet. The existing right of way for each side will have to be increased by 35 feet. The thresholds for both north-south runways will be designed, as reflected on the Airport Layout Plan, to provide adequate safety areas and approach clearance over the highway. Spacing for the MALSR lights will be taken into account to straddle the highway right of way. With the proposed new runway 17R/35L construction, portions of two county roads (62 and 64) will have to be abandoned. Isbill Associates and the Weld County Road Department have conducted separate road count surveys to find the extent of impacts which may occur with the closing of the two county roads. A visual survey conducted by Isbill Associates provided information which highlighted the fact that 75% of all traffic using the intersections of County Roads 47 & 62 and 47 & 64 were pickups and cars (See Figure IV-2). The remaining 25% was divided between farm trucks and equipment. The visual survey was conducted for an average of three days for three separate periods during th.: fall. Fall harvest is a peak time for farm traffic on county roads in Weld County. While peak traffic counts occurred during the harvest season (October and November) the percentage of harvest equipment and farm trucks were low as compared to pickups and cars counted. The higher percentage of pickup/car traffic would be diverted to State Highway 263 with only minor inconvenience. In most instances this diversion for cars and pickups would be just as fast and close as County Road 62, depending on the vehicle's destination. Assuming that most east-west traffic on County Road 62 is going to and from Greeley. Slower moving farm equipment would be IV-7 9OO322 rerouted either to the north of the proposed construction or to State Highway 263. Again with only minor inconvenience occurring to the users. The detouring of farm equipment would add s,. an extra five miles on to the trip depending on the equipments destination. Mitigation measures include paving portions of County Roads 47 and 66. This will provide a convenient access to State Highway 263 and a paved alternative to Bliss Road to the north of the airport. During the three visual surveys conducted by Isbill Associates, Inc., an average of 15 farm 's tractors per day were reported using County Road 62 west of County Road 47. Discussion with several farm implement dealers has provided an estimate that slow moving farm tractors with equipment attached average 15 to 20 miles per hour. Using this average along with the five mile detour results in an extra 20 minutes being added to slower moving farm tractors using County Road 62. The closure of portions of County Roads 62 and 64 will require approval from the Board of 1W County Commissioners. Procedurally, written notice of the proposed road closure would be sent to adjacent land owners along the county road. At a regular open meeting of the County Commission the proposal to close portions of County Roads 62 and 64 would be discussed. After a public input process and a review and evaluation of the issues raised by that process the County Commissioners would be asked to make a final decision and to pass an appropriate resolution. A decision for road closure would have to be approved by a majority of the commissioners and be in the best interest of Weld County and its citizens. The expected increase in aircraft operations at Greeley•Weld County Airport is not expected to cause a significant increase in surface traffic. I. INDUCED SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS Both the "No Action" and the Develop the Airport alternatives are not expected to alter the population growth of the Greeley or Weld County significantly. As the airport is developed, it should bring a steady increase in business, training, itinerant and recreational aviation activities which can be seen as a benefit to the local economy in that, it enhances economic growth throughout the area's markets. The overall socioeconomic impact caused by continued development of Greeley-Weld County Airport should be beneficial in that it will provide a short term increase in construction employment, and a longer duration increase in generated tax revenues as a result of increased sales of aviation related goods and services. IV-8 910322 / ( 1 2 1 a It Io la j I 2 h I° 1 gC / A o I, I' { 4 in <I r p m 1; i m la ^� F a / f / 1,1aN-- hF h9 EAY ivf /LOuY 40.1.94J/ T 1 1 a CO 2 CA CO m ' € a 1 b 2 O I^ i i N ,/ I f=�� , 9 i COUNII ihuo I.f _ N 0 na ,- . :1 to --Win!)ti 1 i I I i • / I. . [I 11 11 COUnc• .wOJO u CC t l\ I' 1 I 1 t G, ,. . . :� \ci, m a 3' r 1 I m — - e EouvYr aoiJ ♦➢ C n m I m IC C O Z M F m I. y y O o D o 0 .jilliiii..4-` , x c Z r 1 cI p 2. i.87 I I LA : I s % u " m x 910322 Z CO )6 i W > n i 7----- v ` p -ve itle . a g 1 : o z u a U 1. C i r F e, Q 'in ::. i 04iU _ 6♦ Cro& 4.M+0 C ' I 1 1" Ifi• li y I 0II -�. c... mJ .1 it lc I I 1\l I 1 !I LYON 4JMn0J _`; sc..-1 I ii L r I - 1 I 1 I I p.ilip,I„,..... (0 I •t • - - __ _—._ I •.. � ' 9 n ore, ...to' _ I J, 3 k•. l r ' j,ir • 1. . I . 4 i op 1 co m ng In8 I I r 1 I I p _I (PI COD&I(WV. / in I&&3w., r I b bI1----"Ille 3 / oz CO it Tit Om e i .i \ / o of 1 1 .i of i >I . NI U 0 E-.c.Or -- — - r. CO 7) I I a g4 ol Co a 0 I a k ; QW I I F—i �1co I , � D CA-.. § w • W 1 I, r I a a y o . w� w i.>- W 0- I yu z CID In oo O L7 i p I I I 1 I I n in I I n o N 1 n I i___ _. c0 1 r4 I I N) Iin a ` I I P I i 1 I e sP et ,- I A • ¢ § 5€ 4 F R = INS r{ ;- Jf-*, -._ - �. a 4 a _ A,II 1 ie 3 -.Ia I in T f S 5 4 I ga a A; ! aA Pt _g 1 pp 0 A un I ____I- -- _.__---- r- _---- --- - -....- r - --- --._.-- i ,'''--- / n iy n ! r h 1 / 4 d y ;,,•,* / _ 1 t o: o '- I ! s_. tai 1 E: e+ h 11 L__ t i IE.--, coz STATEMENT PUBLIC HEARING GREELEY/WELD COUNTY AIRPORT APRIL 12, 1990 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES It is the intent of the Greeley/Weld County Airport authority to obtain an additional runway for the existing airport . The addition will require the purchase of certain lands north of the airport . The proposed expansion will also require the abandonment of oil and gas wells and related properties . Coors Energy Company owns and operates wells that must be abandoned should the proposed expansion of the airport be implemented . Therefore , Coors Energy Company has assessed the impact of the expansion on its operations and future plans . INFORMATION PROVIDED TO COORS Based on information provided to Coors Energy Company by Jeff Rogers of Isbill Associates , INC. airport consultants from Denver , Colorado , the following restrictions and information apply. 1 . The proposed runway has a center line 2000 feet west of the center line of Weld County Road 47 at Weld County Road 62 and 1900 feet west of the center line of Weld County Road 47 at Weld County Road 64 . The proposed runway ends 1300 feet north of Weld County Road 64 . 2 . Height limitations are required to the sides of the runway. These restrictions require that no surface structures exist within 500 feet perpendicular to the runway and from thence no structure that extends one foot up for each seven feet out . 3 . Height limitations are required at the end of the runway. These restrictions require that no surface structures exist within 200 feet from the end of the runway for a width of 500 feet each direction perpendicular from an extension of the center line of the runway and from thence no structure that extends one foot up for each twenty feet out in a northerly direction in line with the center line of the runway. 900322 Public HearinL Greeley/Weld County Airport April 12, 1990 Page 2 UNIQUE ISSUES Coors Energy Company owns and operates a water disposal well located between the proposed airport runway and taxiway. This disposal well provides Coors with an economic and environmentally sound method for disposal of production water . In addition , it allows other oil and gas companies to dispose of their production water at this site and therefore , the disposal well is a long-term source of income to Coors Energy Company . The amount of water that could be injected is limited by the Lyons formation characteristics to a volume of 1-1/2 barrels per minute or 2160 barrels per day. The average disposal is 1100 barrels per day. Finally, the water disposal well also has been drilled through the Codell-Niobrara formation and therefore , has reserves available for production upon abandonment of the disposal formation . OIL AND GAS WELLS Coors Energy Company has ten producing wells in Section 26 , T6N-R65W and two producing wells in Section 35, T6N-R65W. The proposed airport expansion would require the removal of two producing wells in Section 26 and one well in Section 35. The affected wells are as follows : WELL NAME LOCATION Lyster 4-26EG 760 'FEL , 660 'FSL , Section 26 Howard 6-26EG 1980 'FEL , 1980 'FNL , Section 26 Lyster 4-35EG 1980 'FEL , 660 ' FNL , Section 35 The expansion could require the removal of other wells , including the Lyster 9-26EG, which is located at 660 'FEL , 1980 ' FSL , Section 26 . It appears that this well is three feet outside the guidelines provided by Isbill Associates . Another well , the Howard 11-26EG, which is located at 664 'FEL , 1800 ' FNL , Section 26 , appears to be just within the guideline limit . The Lyster 4-26EG, Howard 6-26EG, and Howard 11-26EG are all producing from the Parkman formation but have already been drilled through the Codell-Niobrara formation . The Lyster 4-35EG and Lyster 9-26EG are producing from the Codell-Niobrara formation . 900322 Public Hearin. Greeley/Weld County Airport April 12, 1990 Page 3 VALUE The PWNP (Present Worth Net Profit ) based on Coors Energy Company calculations using a ten percent discount factor are as follows : WELL NAME VALUE Lyster 8-26 (water disposal) 82 ,460 , 000 Lyster 8-26 (Codell-Niobrara) 110 ,000 Lyster 4-35EG 0 Lyster 4-26EG 112, 000 Howard 6-26EG 170 ,000 Sub total : $2,852 , 000 Lyster 9-26EG 0 Howard 11-26EG 170 , 000 Subtotal : $3 , 022 ,000 LCC: kr 9C C322 0 • ‘ 411) GREELEY VI/F1 D COUNI"1f AIRPORT - r Post Cy.Ce Box o Greeley.Colorado ado:! 303135od141 April 4, 1990 Dear Airport Neighbors and Friends : At our Board meeting of March 20 , 1990 , the Airport Authority directed that the Airport Master Plan Update be forwarded to the City of Greeley and Weld County for their endorsement . This plan, which has been developed over the past two years , provides for the expansion of runway 17/35 to 8 , 500 feet over the next five to six years with a potential length of 10 ,000 feet , the construction of a parallel training runway 17L/35R of 4000 ft . length, and the rehabilitation and expansion of ramp and taxiways . This development plan is expected to be funded by F.A.A. Aviation Trust Fund dollars at a ratio of 90% Federal/10% City and County . The Federal Aviation Administration has indicated that they will support about $1 ,000 , 000 of construction cost per year over the next six years . The City and County are expected to fund about $50 ,000 each per year as their share. Total cost for the short term development is estimated at $6 . 7 million. The City and County will hold a joint briefing and public hearing on the proposed Master Plan Update and associated road changes on April 12th at 7 :00 p.m. in the Chambers of the Board of County Commissioners , Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street , First Floor, Greeley, Colorado , to receive public input . Copies of the draft Master Plan Update are available at the City and County offices and the Airport terminal for your review. We will have summary brochures available April 9th at the airport . Sincerely, Fred H. Jaeg Airport Manager FHJ/gjd 900322 ,,i `fie j CXY UNICOM 122&IGXY ILS. 110 5iCX LOM. 3•&GLL VOR. 112 a AIRPORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE GREELEY-WELD COUNTY AIRPORT Greeley, Colorado DRAFT MAD D D ,c,, l 1 . ! is :' "•;, • oft x� m5 *-k/: ' • ISBILL ASSOCIATES, INC. AIRPORT CONSULTANTS DENVER, COLORADO 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Greeley - Weld County Airport Master Plan Update INTRODUCTION I. MASTER PLAN UPDATE SUMMARY Project Organization I-1 Goals and Objectives I-1 The Process I-3 II. AIRPORT AND COMMUNITY INVENTORY Airport Location II-1 Existing Airport Facilities II-1 Support Facilities II-7 Approach and Navigational Aids II-7 Utilities II-10 Fuel Storage II-11 Area Aviation Activity II-13 Community Profile II-13 Population II-14 Employment II-16 Land II-17 Summary II-18 III. AVIATION DEMAND FORECASTS Background III-1 Forecast Methodology and Assumptions III-1 Annual General Aviation Forecasts III-4 Summary III-6 IV. DEMAND/CAPACITY ANALYSIS Introduction IV-1 Methodology IV-1 Airfield Configuration IV-2 Meteorology IV-3 Aircraft Mix IV-6 Percent Touch-and-Go Operations IV-6 Percent Arrivals IV-6 Exit Factor IV-7 Annual Service Volume (ASV) Calculations IV-7 Conclusions IV-7 V. FACILITY REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES Introduction V-1 Facility Requirements V-1 Development Alternatives V-4 Alternate Development Costs V-12 Conclusion V-13 9C0322 VI. OBSTRUCTIONS AND LAND USE CONTROL Land Acquisition VI-3 Conclusion VI-3 VII. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS VII-1 Future Airport Development VII-1 Financing VII-5 Operating Expenses VII-8 Nonoperating Revenues & Expenses VII-10 Capital Outlay VII-11 Funding & Implementation VII-14 Conclusion VII-17 VIII. PAVEMENT Conclusion VII-16 IX. ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW Introduction IX-1 Noise IX-2 Compatible Land Use IX-2 Social Impacts IX-3 Induced Social Impacts IX-4 Air Quality IX-4 Water Quality IX-4 DOT ACT Section 4(F) IX-4 Historical, Architectural, Archaeological and Cultural IX-5 Biotic Communities IX-5 Endangered and Threatened Species of Flora and Fauna IX-5 Wetlands IX-6 Floodplains IX-6 Coastal Zone Management Program IX-6 Coastal Barriers IX-6 Wild and Scenic Rivers IX-7 Farmlands IX-7 Energy Supply and Natural Resources IX-7 Light Emissions IX-7 Solid Waste Impacts IX-8 Construction Impacts IX-8 Summary IX-9 APPENDIX LIST OF TABLES II-I Hangar Description II-6 II-2 Fuel History II-12 II-3 Peak Population Estimates 11-15 1I-4 Weld County Employment II-16 1I-5 Airport Historic and Future Employment 11-17 III-1 Based Aircraft Forecasts 1II-2 III-2 Airport Historic Operations III-3 III-3 1988 Airport Operations III-4 III-4 Fleet Mix Forecast III-5 V-1 Fuel Facilities Requirements V-5 VII-1 Capital Improvement Program VII-2 VII-2 Historic Airport Revenue VII-5 VII-3 Jet-A Fuel Sales VII-7 VII-4 Historic Operating Expenses VII-9 VII-5 Historic Expenses versus Revenue VII-12 LIST OF FIGURES 1 Organizational Chart I-2 2 Weld County Airport Map 11-2 3 Terminal and Aeronautical Chart II-8 4 Aviation Forecast III-3 5 Alternative A V-9 6 Alternative B V-10 7 Alternative C V-11 8 Traffic Pattern Airspace VI-4 9 Pavement Condition Index VIII-3 10 Airfield Pavement Layout Plan VIII-17 LISTS OF EXHIBITS I Airport Layout Plan II Building Area Layout III Building Area Layout IV Obstruction and Approach Zones (Part 77) V Obstructions and Approach Zones (Part 77) VI Runway 9/27 Clear Zone Plan and Profile VII Runway 17R/3 5L Clear Zone Plan and Profile VIII Runway 17L/35R Clear Zone Plan and Profile 900322 INTRODUCTION 90322 INTRODUCTION This update of the Greeley-Weld County Airport Master Plan evaluates the capability of the airport to meet current and projected aviation demand over a future 20-year time frame in an efficient and economically sound manner. The update extends the planning period from the year 1987 through the year 2007. The updated Master Plan includes a phased schedule for airport improvements to meet future regional air transportation needs, and recommended actions that will assist the airport sponsor in assuring long-term compatibility of the airport operations and the use of land in the airport influence area. The Greeley-Weld County Airport is centrally located in unincorporated Weld County, in the north central portion of Colorado. The area's population base includes the City of Greeley, the county seat, the towns of Evans, Fort Lupton and the unincorporated areas of the County. Population influences occur from the nearby cities of Fort Collins and Loveland to the west, as well as Denver to the south. The Weld County Planning Department reported a 1987 County population of 141,985 of which Greeley comprises an estimated population of 59,0301 The Greeley-Weld County Airport serves the City of Greeley, as well as the entire Weld County area. The National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS, 1987) describes the Greeley- Weld County Airport as a general utility airport which serves general aviation aircraft. The airport is presently accommodating turbojet-powered business aircraft up to 18,000 pounds Single Wheel Gear (SWG) gross weight. Based on total operations, Greeley-Weld County Airport is the third busiest in the state. To fulfill its role for providing air transportation for the Greeley-Weld County area and the increasing FBO, business, student and visitor needs, airport improvements must continue. Since the existing Master Plan was adopted in 1980 and supplemented in 1984, there have been changes in the community leadership and the airport management, and the goals and community policies may be somewhat different from those existing when the Master Plan was completed. Based on a comparison of the actual aviation activity which has occurred at the airport and new projections of that activity through the year 2007, the Master Plan Update contains a development program that retains previous recommendations still considered valid, and modifies or adds to the existing Master Plan as appropriate. 1 Community profile for the City of Greeley, Colorado. -1- 9C0322 L MASTER PLAN UPDATE SUMMARY 9C0322 _ _ _ § f a t _ { } 2 ) k }) k 0 t ) ] \ k 8 Tv \ \ I \ ce o } k - ° 2 \ gi. 3 2 = a 5 - ) 7 ` 5 - a = I ■ } { $ $ § f ■ 2 la ( ! _ _ © k / / f /) ) / - . \g I ea k < . / fig 8 8 f \ •0 \ t � � ) ) 3 \ k ` \ / / } 7 \/ cg) ° in ) \ . \ \ \ \ \ \ \ coo \ - w < $ E _ , , 2 / | & ) @ § 2 • 0e =aic 7 7 7 7 7] . 7 § f2 / / 22J�� ) A. A. A. A. / _ / }} E ; j ] 5 328 ; § o2@I \ ie\/ J ) / § ) ) f\ / \ } . � — & u } Et< \3 \ 3 < <V to 6 f / f ea # ) § 4 f 5 I. ] a 8 ■ i © E < 7 3 ■ |2 . ; , } 3 ) J ( < ) ) E I 07. E = U ] f f i = < 2 1-2 I. MASTER PLAN UPDATE SUMMARY PROJECT ORGANIZATION The Greeley-Weld County Airport Authority, the City of Greeley, and Weld County, Colorado, as the Airport Sponsor, are continuing their efforts to plan for future development of the airport to enhance air and ground operations safety and improve the services the airport provides within the national aviation system. The project to update the Greeley-Weld County Airport Master Plan commenced with meetings with representatives of the Greeley-Weld County Airport Authority, Airport tenants and users, followed by individual interviews with interested parties. Figure I depicts the project participants and their responsibilities. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The overall objective of the Master Plan Update is to evaluate alternatives for the ultimate development of the airport and to assess the compatibility of such development with the environment and the goals of Weld County, the City of Greeley and the surrounding areas. Specific objectives of this study are defined as follows: • A review of the existing Master Plan and a discussion of the airport's current issues and existing conditions; • An inventory of the existing aviation facilities at the airport; • An analysis of available socioeconomic data reflecting the past and present characteristics of Weld County and the surrounding area; • Forecasts of future aviation demand levels through the year 2007, utilizing both socioeconomic information and airport activity statistics; • A demand/capacity analysis to determine the ability of the existing airport facilities and land areas to meet present and future aviation demands; I-I 900322 • An alternative analysis of additional facilities and/or reconfiguration of existing facilities that will be required, and a proposed development schedule, including cost estimates; • Completion of a noise impact analysis and preparation of noise contour maps for the 20-year time frame; • An overview of environmental impacts associated with the proposed airport development, addressing each of the specific impact categories outline in FAA Order 5050.4A Airport Environmental Handbook; • Preparation of a Land Use Plan that is consistent with City/County planning policies,with specific land use recommendations in noise impact areas and under airport approaches. On-airport uses will be reflected on the Airport Layout Plan; • An analysis of the financial status of the airport and a plan for funding needed improvements and; • Preparation of a new Airport Layout Plan Drawing set. THE PROCESS The Master Plan Update process includes the following actions: • An inventory of the existing facilities on the airport; contact with tenants and airport users; discussions with planning agencies of Weld County and the City of Greeley and discussions with the Airport Authority, Airport Manager and Airport Staff. • A review of the aviation activity which actually occurred at the airport since 1978; projections of future flight activity; and an analysis of capacity of the airport to accommodate projected demand. • An update of all drawings in the Airport Layout Plan set. I-3 9C0322 • Preparation of a phased development schedule for recommended airport improvements; a review of the airport cash flow and projected cash flow; and preparation of a financial plan to meet capital improvement costs. • Preparation of an overview of the environmental impacts of the proposed development. The Master Plan Update process included the use of information contained in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS, 1987), Terminal Area Forecasts(fiscal years 1987- 2000), the State Airport System Plan Update (1983) and appropriate FAA Advisory Circulares including: AC 150/5050-6 Airport Land Use Compatibility Planning AC 150/5060-5 Airport Capacity and Delay AC 150/5070-6A Airport Master Plans AC 150/5300-4B Utility Airports - Air Access to National Transportation AC 150/5300-12 Airport Design Standards - Transport Airports The Greeley-Weld County Airport has become a primary training facility and will continue to see an increase in student flight operations. Since no accurate historical record of aircraft operations exist, the partial year statistics complied by the weather observation tower personnel was used. The total number of operations for 1989 is expected to reach 190,000. If the current upward trend continues, total general operations in 2007 are forecasted to reach 260,000. The increased training traffic and business aircraft use of Greeley-Weld County Airport has prompted the need to evaluate several alternative actions which would help improve the efficiency and operations of the airport. The primary improvements suggested for the airport were evaluated in several alternatives. Primary improvements which would improve overall operations of the airport include: • The construction of a parallel training runway. • The construction of an Air Traffic Control Tower. • The extension of the primary runway. The addition of a parallel training runway to the primary runway will increase the Annual Surface Volume(ASV) from 205,000 to 275,000. This runway will also reduce the congestion associated with the increased touch and go traffic by students attending the various flight I-4 schools at the airport. The Air Traffic Control Tower and extension of the primary runway would improve the efficiency and safety at the airport. The Alternatives were reviewed with attention paid to: • Future aviation demand • Runway alignment to accommodate all classes of aircraft • Environmental considerations • Operational Considerations • Potential conflicts with surrounding airports The following Development Alternatives were examined: A. Extend present runway 9/27 Construct runway 9L/27R Reinstall ILS/MALSR on 9/27 B. Extend present runway 17/35 Construct runway 17L/35R for training Install ILS/MALSR on extended 17/35 C. Construct new runway 17R/35L Retain present runway 17/35 as 17L/35R for training Install ILS/MALSR on runway 17R/35L D. Construct remote training runway off-airport Extend runway 9/27 Reinstall ILS/MALSR on runway 9/27 Both environmental and operational considerations point to a north alignment for the primary instrument runway. Environmental concerns are reduced in this alignment include; noise and conflicts with the Cache La Poudre River. The northern alignment also eliminates the potential conflicts in IFR operations with Ft. Collins-Loveland Airport. Alternative "B" was the choice for airport improvements. This alignment is preferred for reducing environmental concerns, operational conflicts with other airports and within the airport traffic pattern and provides the most cost effect method for addressing the increased I-5 9C0322 airport traffic pattern and provides the most cost effect method for addressing the increased traffic that is forecasted for Greeley-Weld County Airport. The Demand/Capacity Analysis and Facility Requirement sections of The Master Plan will also address these alternatives. Capital Improvements associated with Alternative B are shown below in a phased development summary. This development is divided into three phases. The first phase is the projected schedule and cost for years 0-5. The second phase of develop includes years 5-10. Phase III is the final phase of development which encompasses the final 10-20 years of this Master Plan Update. TABLE VII-1 GREELEY-WELD COUNTY AIRPORT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PHASE I (0-5 Years) Total FAA Sponsor Description Cost Share Share Acquire Land (300 Ac.) and Relocation of Persons for North-South R/Ws $1,368,000 $1,231,200 $136,800 Site Preparation for R/W 17R/35L Extension & R/W 17L/35R Construction $1,558,000 $1,402,200 $155,800 Pave & Light R/W 17R/35L Including Parallel & Connecting T/W $1,886,000 $1,697,400 $188,600 Pave R/W 17L/35R $564,000 $507,600 $56,400 Modify Oil Wells $300,000 $270,000 $30,000 Rehabilitate East End of Parallel Taxiway to Runway 9/27 $150,000 $135,000 $15,000 Rehabilitate Tiedown Apron $700,000 $630,000 $70,000 Expand Aircraft Tiedown Apron $210,000 $189.000 521.000 TOTAL $6,736,000 $6,062,400 $673,600 I-6 PHASE II (5-10 Years) Total FAA Sponsor Description Cost Share Share Relocate ILS & MALSR to R/W 35L $1,100,000 $990,000 $110,000 Install Taxiway Lighting 160,000 144,000 16,000 Strengthen R/W 17R/35L and Parallel T/W system (60,000 DWG) 2,328,000 2,095,200 232,800 Strengthen Itinerant Aircraft Parking Apron (60,000 DWG) 350,000 315,000 35,000 Construct New Fuel Facility 100,000 --- 100,000 Acquire Additional Land for Aviation Related Development 500,000 450,000 50,000 Expand Aircraft Tiedown Apron 150,000 135,000 15,000 Improve Terminal Access and Parking 250.000 90,000 160,000 TOTAL $5,738,000 $4,219,200 $1,518,800 PHASE III (10-20 Years) Total FAA Sponsor Description Cost Share Share Acquire Additional Land for Compatible Land Use Protection $1,500,000 $1,350,000 $150,000 Extend R/W 17R/35L & Parallel T/W to 10,000 feet 1,000,000 900,000 100,000 Widen Parallel T/W to 50 feet 500,000 450,000 50,000 Construct New Terminal Building 800,000 ---- Expand Aircraft 800,000 Parking Apron 150,000 135,000 15.000 TOTAL $3,950,000 $2,835,000 $1,115,000 1-7 900322 II. AIRPORT AND COMMUNITY PROFILE ( a 9C0322 F - , II. AIRPORT AND COMMUNITY INVENTORY AIRPORT LOCATION Greeley-Weld County Airport is located in the approximate center of Weld County in northeastern Colorado. The largest population centers of northeastern Colorado located near the airport are; Greeley, 2.5 miles to the west; Fort Collins, 23 miles to the northwest; and Loveland, 22 miles to the west. The airport facilities are located on State Highway 263, 2.5 miles east of U.S. Highway 85, approximately 60 miles north of Denver and 50 miles south of Cheyenne, Wyoming. In addition, Interstate 25 is approximately 15 miles to the west and provides convenient access to the cities of Fort Collins and Loveland. Figure 2 shows the airport location. The climate in Weld County is dry and generally mild with warm summers and mild winters indicative of the semi-arid plains. The mean monthly temperature ranges from 23.8°F.during the winter months to 74.8°F. in the summer. The mean maximum temperature of 91.1 ct occurs during July, the hottest month. Annual precipitation averages 11.9 inches. Most of this annual total occurs during the spring, including the months of March, April, May and June. Total annual snowfall is approximately 36 inches. There is an average of 341 days of sunshine each year. The airport site comprises approximately 777 acres of land situated in all or portions of Sections 1, 2 and 3, Township 5 North, Range 65 West of the 6th Principal Meridian. The field elevation is 4,657.60 feet above mean sea level and the airport reference point (ARP) coordinates are 40°25'35.1" north latitude and 104°37'49.4" west longitude. EXISTING AIRPORT FACILITIES Runways and Taxiways Greeley-Weld County Airport has a primary runway (9/27) oriented east-west 6,200 feet long and 100 feet in width and a crosswind runway (17/35) oriented north/south 3,600 feet long and 75 feet wide. There is a 400-foot overrun at the approach end of Runway 27. The published strength of Runway 9/27 is 18,000 pounds for aircraft with Single Wheel Gear (SWG). II-1 900322 FIGURE 2 GREELEY-WELD COUNTY AIRPORT LOCATION AND VICINITY MAP LARAM/E ALBANY Cheyeme I KIMBALL WYOMING I NEBRASKA COLORADO I I I I I LARIMER I WELD 14 f Fort I GREELEy O i Collins ' —I Park Estes - I � I \, Loveland \ I I 3 a 1 I MORGAN 4 .... -....0 Fort --'7 h25 Morgan ( BOULDER i I r e s I r✓ Boulder % —_ —_—_—_ — •GILPIN i % ADAMS I i \ 1 Z-70 % senveett" ��- I-70 1 CLEARCREEK ARAPAH0E I i - - - - I„EFFER.rOV I G.' - -----t - I rI I-25 I i PIKE I ) GLAS I ELBERT 1 11-2 There is currently one parallel taxiway serving the main runway. However, only one-third of it's length is in compliance with FAA's 400-foot precision runway separation requirement. The western end of the taxiway was constructed at the same time the runway was extended in 1981 and is 40-feet wide. The parallel taxiway for Runway 17/35 has not been completed. Three angled connector taxiways and two access taxiways provide entrance/exits from the primary runway. Three taxiways provide access to the terminal area and eastern general aviation area while one taxiway connects the runway to the western general aviation apron areas. Two gravel surfaced runways (15/33 and 3/21) have been abandoned from further use with the paving of Runway 17/35. The following projects are listed in an approximate chronology of runway and taxiway improvements completed since the airport was founded in 1943 under the name of "Weld County Municipal Airport". 1943 Construction of Runway 15/33 - 1,400-feet x 75-feet - gravel surface Construction of Runway 9/27 - 3,000-feet x 75-feet - gravel surface Construction of Runway 3/21 - 2,750-feet x 80-feet - gravel surface 1950 Paving and extension of Runway 9/27 - 3,000-feet x 75-feet with strength of 18,000 lbs. SWG 1981 Extension of Runway 9/27 to 6,200-feet Construction of paved taxiway parallel to Runway 9/27 - 40-feet wide, separation distance 250-feet south 1983 Construction of new aircraft holding apron for Runway 27 Construction of taxiway to Ag Sprayer Building area Runway 9/27 widened to 100-feet Construction of a partial parallel taxiway along west end of Runway 9/27 - 40- feet wide, separation distance 400-feet 1987 Construction of crosswind Runway 17/35 - 3,600-feet x 75-feet - paved with strength of 12,500 pounds SWG Abandonment of gravel Runways 3/21 and 15/33 Approach and Navigational Aids With the installation of an Instrument Landing System(ILS) with Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System (MALSR) in January of 1984, the airport has a 6,200-foot long precision instrumented runway (9/27). In the spring of 1987, an observation weather tower was constructed at the terminal/airport administration office building. The tower is staffed from 8:00 am - 6:00 pm October through May and 7:00 am - 10:00 pm June through September, II-3 900322 providing hourly weather observations to the flight service station in Denver and advisory service to pilots. The east end of the Runway 9/27 is equipped with Runway End Identifier Lights (REIL) and Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) systems are installed for Runway 9. Following is an approximate chronology of visual and navigational aid improvement projects: 1943 Installation of wind cone, rotating beacon and low intensity lighting for Runway 9/27 1963 New Medium Intensity Runway Lighting (MIRL) system for Runway 9/27 _ Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) located at Gill, Colorado, approximately six miles northeast of airport, with TACAN components. 1981 Lighting of Runway 9/27 as extended 1983-84 Installation and commissioning of Instrument Landing System(ILS)with Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System, (MALSR) and runway alignment indicator lights for Runway 9 1985 Installation of Runway End Identifier Lights(Runway 27)and Precision Approach Path Indicator (Runway 9) 1988 Installation Visual Approach Slope Indicator (VASI), Runway 27 Terminal Facilities The Airport Authority currently operates in an approximate 1,850 square foot three-story terminal/tower building. A waiting area, restaurant, a pilot supply counter, pilot's lounge, restrooms and the airport administrator's office are located in this facility. The three-story weather observation tower is also incorporated into this structure. The airport provides fuel sales, pilot supplies, oxygen, Unicorn and hangar tiedown rentals. Presently there is hangar space for 114 aircraft. Of that, a total of 24 are for small, 82 medium and 8 executive sized aircraft can be accommodated. An additional 45 tiedowns are leased by the Authority. The fueling facilities include two Ford fuel trucks and buried tanks supplying auto (Mogas), 100 Octane low lead (100LL) and Jet-A fuel. Paved automobile parking for 34 private and employee vehicles is provided in front of the terminal building and an additional gravel parking area is available for long-term parking, II-4 accommodating approximately 20 vehicles. The terminal aircraft parking apron is located adjacent to, and north of the terminal building. There are 42 designated general aviation aircraft and 3 designated helicopter parking positions on the terminal apron. General Aviation Facilities There are five (5) special service Fixed Base Operators (FBO), including the airport authority, located on the Greeley-Weld County Airport. A variety of services are provided by the FBO's including aircraft maintenance and repair, hangar and tiedown rental, fuel, aircraft sales, flight training and crop spraying. The building facilities housing these services and tenants of the airport are generally grouped on either the east or west sides of Sand Creek. There is space available for growth in both areas. An airport facilities list is included on the Airport Layout Plan (see Exhibit I). The Airport Authority provides the sale of fuel to transient users, with a total capacity of 24,000 gallons, 100 octane low-lead, 15,000 gallons Jet-A and 8,000 gallons auto gas stored in underground tanks. An additional 1,200 gallons of 100 low-lead and 2,200 gallons of Jet A fuel is available in two Ford fuel trucks. Locally based general aviation aircraft utilize outside tiedown and hangar facilities, with an approximate split of a 20%/80% respectively. There is presently leasable space in the executive hangars, however, there is a waiting list for the smaller hangars. The 12 T-hangars owned and operated by the airport authority provide for covered storage of 114 aircraft with adjacent aircraft parking aprons. Following is a tabulation of T-hangars which the airport authority leases out. A total of four (4) privately owned hangars provide for approximately 18 executive aircraft storage and approximately 30-40 smaller aircraft. H-5 9C0322 TABLE II-I GREELEY-WELD COUNTY AIRPORT HANGAR DESCRIPTION Units Type of No. of per Aircraft T-Hangars Hangar Storage 2 10 Single Engine 1 4 Single Engine 1 4 Single/Lt. Twin 1 6 Single/Lt. Twin 3 10 Single/Lt. Twin 3 14 Single/Lt. Twin 1 8 Executive Totals 12 114 Nine structures currently are located within the 750-foot building restriction line and are proposed to be relocated or removed. These structures include the terminal/airport administration building,crop dusting storage shed,Aerowest Flying Club structures,C&C Crop Dusting, Low-Level Dusting, J.W. Duff Aircraft parts storage, and various other airport authority hangars and storage facilities. These buildings are shown on the Building Area Layout (Exhibit II). Accesses and Auto Parking Access to the airport from State Highway 263 is by two entrances, Crosier Avenue to the east and Buss Avenue to the west. Both entrances are paved, with adequate drainage. The Colorado Air National Guard, an airport lessee, also has direct access from the state highway. County roads in proximity to the airport are Cherry Avenue to the west of Runway 9 and Bliss Road to the north of Runway 17. The existing clear zone for Runway 17/35 overlaps Bliss Road to the north and State Highway 263 to the south. Similarly the clear zone for Runway 27 overlaps State Highway 263 to the east. Any lengthening of Runway 9 will cause the corresponding clear zone to overlap both Cherry Avenue and Bliss Road. Terminal parking is provided by paved and unimproved areas south of the terminal building. Individual FBO's have parking facilities immediately adjacent to their facilities. These I1-6 parking areas are sufficient in capacity. Taxi and limousine service is available to serve passengers disembarking at the airport. Rental car service is also available on an "as-needed" basis. SUPPORT FACILITIES Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) First Response ARFF service is provided by Western Hills Fire District located within five minutes response time of the airport. ARFF service from the City of Greeley expired when the ownership of the facilities and buildings were transferred to the Airport Authority. The City of Greeley's emergency services will offer assistance when requested. Western Hills Fire District has three pumper trucks and is manned by trained, voluntary firefighters. Fire hydrants on the airport provide in-line water supply,considered to have low residual pressure. Snow Removal Eauioment The Airport Authority owns three (3) pieces of equipment which is used for snow removal; these are: a dump truck with blade, a road grader, and a Hough loader with blade. This equipment is old, requiring continuous maintenance to keep in good working order. AIRSPACE AND NAVIGATIONAL AIDS Navigational Aids (NAVAIDS) include any visual or electronic devices, either airborne or on the ground, which provide point-to-point guidance information or position data to aircraft in flight. The ground-based electronic navigational aids that are located on or near the Greeley-Weld County Airport may be classified as enroute navigational aids, terminal area navigational aids, and landing aids. (See Figure 3). Enroute Air Navigation Aids Published instrument procedures to Greeley-Weld County Airport presently include Non- Directional Radio Beacon (NDB) and VHF omni-directional range (VOR) approach to Runway 9. II-7 9C0322 FIGURE 3 GREELEY-WELD COUNTY AIRPORT TERMINAL AND AERONAUTICAL CHART _00 (IAfj 5129' ' • ' 5435' 5095' Q =O 1935' OFo • NI � 0112.8 GLL (1481 0,24 1/� r s \ lo54OE,;2,4;L'Cr \N Ai \1AMER 4?0, 7GREEY _ 191P' O~ \\. 2 1 U,,E� ` RIMS T' c/8o a -614° \c.% .-256= I 348 g �/ 1 00/ �� o-.. o)47 0 Q41° 100 N /�ti MAO 00 n URRI . � /2J = 9g1' ` n17B0' OO>> ets w o • DENVER $gy /e m orn ..$ -?740 MM :CHEYENNE. O Jg ➢ y1 J� >b. •e 133.0 124.8 NYOtf O O+ K9u : I p - S Imoosw a !I 50141 NNW ` A FT COO NUNN5 v2 1 . _ C� • `� E 0,,.,.o-„ '', o%am ,2:1G 5718' 4713' �.� ' 479I' i r, 935 O O 2 o^ o — 094° 110.5 IGXY �� 0_ y�A93s /o ° olj2.l .. __. ._ A5155' ESTUS P. LIBEL \./ _ 'm� — v 101 2 a O 1 5333' IB73'• DIS Y0 1310()W 258 8 419 4 DEn •:,...,. 4993' AO de rt couros ' le / N 104,-SO • 104"0 IOLm Y 'p lovcuno 01� / _ B u tC A. .p C�6COIIN vp11�t mOcEkir J0338 MM N,t. : \O`` 610 O L r,'s- 2„4% a �^ w0i \ �O 'ip ��9 - NAM B Cs 0- ^' n 4658 \ O \ SMITLa Q4� ?..9j 8s< J` Ouooa ory J' y 11 NW 1'0 1 a�ti� 17. O '_O�KO °f��4ry( `L- ,A. Q 110 SW 0 FNN^ Q.. „,,,0,44./ 9, ./ D 7000 es fa in da % ,>•.ICAOERO 99 r4 to h ? KEANNA r0 O •e3 a 4,•14{IN ° N n NAINY p\'.,.fC 's D, o N. p'5� N3 v 1201380050 .4.d_,d_t O CB°ulde, , qq,, 'b J M1,LO •19 11 S1' 3 AKRON irken g 5288 Eltird)LO.O4 -I NORNTONI J B� JV. 1 bp'1 J��:•• W T,.Cr - ✓m1 281^OT��flOYS 1L1 4'4 �o DENVER COLD rho .0\iJo( m . t•10 JAA r ;....... DENVER.....1 o�t Sus_ E ,, rr NN nnPO,+ 'fin IT "'�! 1 . ra"--- "55≤ue BYERS . .'1 Or 1 .]595 ❑. suxE) v�pp rb80. .'pH v 1 O ,,,y{{ InVCn J.ou, 0 I r 1/8.. 82 reo 21 aecMv263.383 p G 213 al sai3 N �, �"�aleu vuuaCEr 1 °� 1.80 �q1'° 56 'DEN wx v° �y/ti� —AluagLo g8 V`iiii 2.2233265 //1y BETEL shoe O 00 V Zoe 1'o u9./400 163°° 1'117 0 D_EN A,` wuEse�j,"'MI6) Opgr 2 AGAiT `1 00 THOMAS m bs- v D'�td„ I 17-0 w 9 uolf s." ?o w7°B .1 Th v6 nl 12.9 iXC P E M1 445 94 W DENVER__� �b p J O� 2eoYNN/-' COLD �i1`J�/} i �I ry SHOW Q {(v,i' ill'. Y-4 p10WA ,f ,l,n- v.4,11'117.5 IOC SOURCE: Jeppesen Sanderson, Inc.; Terminal Chart (April 24-87) and Low Altitude Enroute Chart (US(LO)9). I1-8 The Greeley VORTAC is located at Gill, Colorado, 5.8 nautical miles (N.M.) northeast of the airport. The VORTAC facility consists of a Very High Frequency Omni-directional Range (VOR) and a Tactical Air Navigation (TACAN) system which provides directional and distance guidance using distance measuring equipment (DME). Operating in conjunction with the ground station, a properly equipped aircraft is able to translate the VORTAC signals into a visual display of both azimuth and distance. A non-precision circling approach to Runway 9/27 is prescribed. Terminal Area Navigation and Landing Aids An instrument approach can be defined as a prescribed procedure for the orderly transfer of an aircraft under instrument flight rules conditions from the beginning of the initial approach to a landing or to a point from which a landing may be made visually. Non-precision VOR approaches are available to Runway 9 utilizing the VORTAC. This approach enables a pilot to navigate to the airport,and upon visually sighting the runway, circle and land on the opera- tional runway. Instrument Landing System (ILS) procedures to Greeley-Weld County Airport is published for circle-to-land and straight-in landings for Runway 9. A rotating lighted beacon and Unicom radio advisory is also provided. If altimeter settings are not available on Unicom, pilots are directed to use Denver Stapleton International Airport's altimeter setting. Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) are in effect when the weather provides a cloud ceiling of 1,000-feet AGL or less and/or a visibility of three or less miles. No landings are to be made if cloud ceilings are 200- feet AGL or less and visibility is 1/2-mile or less. Lighting A number of lighting aids are available at the Greeley-Weld County Airport to facilitate identification, approach and landing operations at night and in adverse weather conditions. The lighting aids presently in use are described as follows: • Rotating beacon - located near the midpoint and south of Runway 9/27, the beacon operates from sunset to sunrise and during IFR conditions. • Runway lights - Medium Intensity Runway Lights (MIRL), defining the lateral limits of Runway 9/27 can be activated by the approaching pilot on the radio. • Approach Lighting System(ALS)- a configuration of signal lights aligned along the extended Runway 9 centerline was installed in 1983-84. The system, 9C®322 referenced as MALSR is a medium intensity ALS with Runway Alignment Indicator Lights, and is activated by the pilot. A Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) is also provided for Runway 9 approaches. A PAPI system provides a visual aid for approaches down to 50-feet above ground level. • Visual Approach Slope Indicator (VASI) - A system of lights on an airport that provides descent guidance to the pilot of an aircraft approaching a runway. VASI's have been installed for use on Runway 27. Airspace and Air Traffic Control Flights into the airport are conducted using both Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) and Visual Flight Rules (VFR). Instrument Flight Rules are those that govern the procedures for conducting instrument flight under all weather conditions. Visual Flight Rules govern the procedures for conducting flight by visual references under legally visual conditions (cloud ceiling greater than 1,000-feet AGL and/or visibility greater than or equal to three miles). Greeley-Weld County averages 341 days annually of sunny, warm, clear, dry weather. Visual approach procedures are predominantly used because of the number of days with clear skies and good weather. The Weather Observation Tower attendants operate the Unicorn during the time the tower is open. The tower is responsible for maintaining weather observations for aircraft landing or taking off from the airport. Weather observations available are cloud height, visibility, temperature, wind speed and direction and altimeter setting. Aircraft are not required to maintain radio contact with the tower. The airport remains open when the tower is closed. UTILITIES An infrastructure of utilities that serve the Greeley-Weld County Airport is in place. Utility services are available as follows: Water Supply - Municipal water from Northern Weld County Water District, via two four-inch PVC lines; some buildings utilize individual wells; a Greeley Water Department water main is located in the south Highway 265 R.O.W., but has not been tapped by the airport. Sewer Service - FBO buildings served by individual septic sewage systems. II-10 Storm Drains and Flood Control - Provided by the Airport Authority. Streets - Buss Avenue and Crosier Avenue Natural Gas - Public Service Company of Colorado; two-inch line enters the airport's south perimeter, running north along the west access road past the FBO building and then east,supplying the remainder of the airport buildings. Electrical Power - Public Service Company of Colorado; non-interruptible basis; an overhead power line enters the property from the south side at a point between the two access roads. From a point near the bridge over Sand Creek, the line is buried extending northward then east to the terminal. Electrical service includes one 37.5 KVA,one 25 KVA and three 15 KVA transformers. Telephone - U.S. West Communications. FUEL STORAGE Approximately eleven various fuel storage tanks are located on the airport property. Underground fuel storage facilities are located at six locations. Two Ford pumper trucks leased by the Airport Authority and a 150-gallon FBO transport add to the total storage capacity of fuel. The facilities are owned and operated by the Airport Authority and Fixed Base Operators. The total storage capabilities (in gallons) of the various facilities are as follows: 100 Octane Jet-A Low Lead Auto 37,000 (58,150) 8,000 A history of fuel sales has been tabulated in Table II-2 below. As indicated by the percentage increase in sales since 1981, aviation fuel demand has increased 22 percent for low-lead 100 (100LL) and 166 percent for Jet-A. II-11 900322 TABLE I1-2 GREELEY-WELD COUNTY AIRPORT FUEL HISTORY 1981-1987 (Gallons) 80-Octane 100LL Jet-A Auto gas 1981 23,182 122,573 45,587 N/A 1982 22,224 79,635 66,203 N/A 1983 33,702 105,881 74,249 N/A 1984 13,702 127,787 136,606 N\A 1985 N\A 139,512 125,226 12,674 1986 N\A 171,247 88,697 12,921 1987 N\A 149,097 121,409 12,646 1988 N\A 152,597 152,296 8,178 1989(Jan-Jun) N\A 65,548 105,375 3,172 II-12 AREA AVIATION ACTIVITY The closest airports to Greeley-Weld County Airport are the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport, Fort Collins Downtown Airpark and the Easton-Valley View Airport. These airports are general aviation use airports. Fort Collins-Loveland Airport has a primary runway(15/33) 6,500' long by 100' wide oriented northwest/southeast and a cross wind runway (6/24), 2,300' long by 40' wide. The primary runway is lighted (HIRL), with complete Instrumented Landing System (ILS) and two non-precision instrument approaches. Paving of a 2,000-foot runway extension is scheduled for 1989. Downtown Fort Collins Airpark has a single, lighted (LIRL) asphalt runway (11/29), 4,700' long by 48' wide oriented east/west. These airports, as well as Greeley-Weld County Airport are Denver center controlled. The third airport in proximity to Greeley-Weld County is Easton-Valley View, a general aviation privately owned airport that is open to the public. The two runways are gravel surfaced, 4,300' long by 35' wide, and 1,220' long by 30' wide oriented east/west. COMMUNITY PROFILE Greeley-Weld County Airport is located at the western edge of the high plains, twenty miles east of the foothills of the Rocky Mountains. A topography of relatively flat plains and rolling hills within the South Platte River drainage, Weld County is primarily used for agriculture. Weld County has the third largest land area of Colorado's sixty-three counties and ranks first among counties in the state for agricultural productivity. The City of Greeley and Weld County have experienced a generally moderate and sustained growth in all of their economic sectors. Greeley has a diverse economy and is aggressively endeavoring to attract new basic industries in order to enhance local employment options. The City of Greeley serves as a regional retail trade center, not only for a large portion of Weld County but also for neighboring counties. In a survey conducted of five northern Colorado front range communities between the years of 1975 and 1985, Greeley ranked second in terms of total dollars of retail trade per capita. Greeley's North Colorado Medical Center provides service to a secondary market of 232,000 people. North Colorado Medical Center is the only full service hospital in Northern Colorado. Adult education is provided through two major institutions; The University of Northern Colorado and Aims Community College. Student enrollment can add as much as approximately 15,600 additional people as a seasonal City of Greeley Comprehensive Plan, adopted 1986. II-13 900322 population. The service and retail businesses of Greeley derive a benefit from individuals coming to Greeley for medical and education services. The Greeley median family income was $19,194 2in 1980, while the Weld County Median FAmily Income(MFI) was approximately$18,696 in 1979. The Weld County MFI has increased steadily and was estimated in 1986 to be approximately $29,500. The effective buying income (personal income less personal tax and non-tax payments) of the area is compared with the national average in the following table. EFFECTIVE BUYING INCOME (EBI)1 12/31/86 City of Weld County Colorado U.S. Greeley Median Household EBI $19,907 $21,752 $26,397 $24,632 POPULATION Greeley is a steadily growing city in Weld County, which in turn has also enjoyed a steady growth in population. The 1980 Bureau of the Census Population count placed the City of Greeley at 53,006 persons. This is an increase of 36 percent over the 1970 population and 101 percent over the 1960 population of 26,314. Weld County has grown from a 1960 population of 72,344 to a 1980 population of 123,438. The Weld County planning department is currently projecting a year 2000 and 2010 county population of 190,400 and 228,193 people respectively. The current Greeley population is estimated (January 1988) to be 59,030, with a year 2000 projection of approximately 79,000. Historical and projected population numbers are shown in Table II-3. ommunity Profile for the City of Greely, Colorado 1 Sales and Marketing Management Publication Survey of Buying Power, 1987 II-14 TABLE II-3 CITY OF GREELEY AND WELD COUNTY 1975-2007 PEAK POPULATION ESTIMATE City of Weld Year Greeley County* Historic: 1960 26,314 1970 38,902 72,344 89,297 1977 59,150 108,600 1980 53,006 123,438 1981 N/A 125,354 1982 N/A 126,795 1983 N/A 131,020 1984 N/A 133,917 1985 57,500 136,700 1986 60,6991 137,230 1987 59,030 140,200 Projected: 1992 70,000 152,765 1997 76,600 165,199 2007 85,0002 190,309 Percent Average Annual Change (1980-1986): Greeley 2.4 Weld Co. 2.2 NOTE: *Weld County uses Colorado State Demographics Projections. 1 Weld County Comprehensive Plan, 1987. 2 Extrapolated from Greeley Comp. Plan Pop, projections, Figure II D-3, the projections higher, at 78,000, 86,800, 101,500, for 1992, 1997 and 2007 respectively. II-15 9C0322 EMPLOYMENT Weld County ranks consistently as one of the nation's top agricultural producers with over 7,500 persons (employees and proprietors) directly employed in farming. New dollars are brought into the community not only in the form of personal income of those involved directly in farming but also in the form of wages and profits paid and earned by agriculturally supported industries. This is reflected at the Greeley-Weld County Airport by the number of based agricultural spraying operators and the expansion of Monfort of Colorado's hangar facilities. The government and education sectors of the economy captures nearly a quarter of the total employment, followed by trade and manufacturing. A review of the largest 30 major employers in the Greeley area reflects a number of diverse basic industries including sensitized photo processing,food processing,insurance claim processing,electronic components, higher education, general contracting, regional financial services and professional services. At the same time, Weld County had an adjusted unemployment rate of 8.1 percent. This rate has steadily decreased to a recent (May 1988) unemployment rate of 6.7 percent. According to the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, Weld County generally has a higher rate of unemployment than the state at large, partly due to the seasonal nature of farm laborer and education/service employment. Table II-4 illustrates the composition of employment within the county as of 1986. TABLE II-4 WELD COUNTY EMPLOYMENT - 1986 Industry Weld County Agriculture 31.0 Construction 5.2 Manufacture 13.4 Transportation, Communication, Utilities 3.8 Wholesale/Retail Trade 16.5 Finance, Insurance, Real Estate 3.4 Services 20.2 Public Administration 4.0 Mining 2.3 The Greeley-Weld County Airport functions as an important component of the regional economy. The airport has sought to increase its role in this economy through runway and building expansion, facilitating continuous planning to avoid land use conflicts in and around the airport. The airport provides a base for local corporate aircraft as well as serving as the II-16 location for approximately ten airport-related businesses and two clubs or associations. Employment characteristics of the airport, both historic and projected are listed in Table H- 5. As indicated by the table of historic and projected employment, pilot training shows a rather rapid and recent increase in employment opportunities, accounting for approximately 60 percent of the total employment by the end of 1988. This growth trend is projected to level off by the end of 1989. Special service FBO's are the second largest employers accounting for 22 percent (1988 estimate), not including airport administration personnel. LAND Greeley-Weld County Airport is located in unincorporated Weld County near the eastern boundary of the City of Greeley. Greeley's physical growth of its corporate boundaries has increased 66% between 1980 and 1987, to a present area of 26.44 square miles. An effort to annex the airport into the City was defeated in 1987. However, Greeley's land use plans continue to reflect the need to zone and promote compatible land uses in and around the airport. 123 TABLE II-5 GREELEY-WELD COUNTY AIRPORT HISTORIC AND FUTURE EMPLOYMENT Category Year Forecast 19871 1988 1992 2007 Airport Administration 6 6 6 6 Pilot Training Schools 32 74 83 83 Agriculture 8 8 8 8 Special Services2FBO 32 32 32 32 Other3 7 9 ja. 13 Total 85 129 142 142 1 Airport Authority survey conducted 1987. 2 Estimated 3 Includes Monfort of Colorado, Aerowest Flying Club and Future FAA Air Traffic Control Tower personnel. II-17 900322 Weld County comprises approximately 4,034 square miles of land of which approximately 77 percent is categorized as total farmland. The majority of the land in proximity to the airport is zoned either agricultural or industrial (I-3), and is used primarily for irrigated crops, light industry and open space. Weld County's I-3 designation provides a zone to accommodate industrial uses which may create adverse visual impacts for adjacent uses. An obstruction and approach zone "overlay zone"district has been established to control building height in proximity to the airport, using recommendations adopted from the 1979 Airport Master Plan]: Greeley's future zoning plan indicates that industrial uses will be the primary zoning between and including the airport, if annexation occurs. Land use controls are exercised by both Greeley and Weld County within critical paths and in keeping with the noise contour area (noise levels > 65 Ldn) prepared by Isbill Associates, Inc., July 1, 1984. SUMMARY Future growth in the population of Greeley and Weld County is expected to be proportionate to Colorado's statewide growth projections. Since the agricultural industry appears to have stabilized,continued steady growth in population and economy can be expected. The effective buying income level will result in more travel, luxury items such as aircraft, education needs including flight education and executive/business travel. Existing infrastructure and community facilities present the City of Greeley with advantages in terms of future development. The Greeley-Weld County Airport provides the City and County with convenient access to both general aviation facilities, particularly business aviation. Easy access to the Interstate system provides additional transportation facilities which assure accessibility to the Front Range of northeastern Colorado. These advantages combined with readily available utilities, municipal services and an improving mix of basic industries give Greeley the ability to attract development which will generate net revenue to the city and Weld County and provide year-round employment opportunities. The continued development of the Greeley-Weld County Airport to meet existing and projected aviation demand and to retain land use compatibility around the airport should remain a very high priority of the Greeley-Weld County Airport Authority. 1 Weld County Zoning Ordinance, March 22, 1988. II-18 _ III. AVIATION DEMAND FORECASTS _ 9C0322 � L - III. AVIATION ACTIVITY FORECASTS BACKGROUND The purpose of this chapter is to develop forecasts that will help to formulate a plan to accommodate future aviation demand at the Greeley-Weld County Airport through the year 2007. This chapter will examine based aircraft, fleet mix and forecasted operations. The forecasts developed in this chapter will then be used in the demand/capacity analysis. FORECAST METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS A number of factors were examined in developing the forecasts for the Greeley-Weld County Airport. These factors include: o Uses for which the forecasts are being developed. o Potential changes. o Air traffic conditions at competing airports. o State-of-the-art advances in aircraft and airport equipment. o Airline demand for new pilots which creates a need for pilot training facilities. o Policies of the airport owner/operator. o Existing airport facilities. Since the Greeley-Weld County Airport does not have an Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT), no reliable historic record of aircraft operations is available. The use of other historical records of aviation activity at Greeley-Weld County Airport does not provide an accurate baseline to develop forecasts. This is due to inconsistencies between FAA, State of Colorado and Sponsor traffic counts. An example of these inconsistencies is shown in FAA forecasts for the year 2000 at 391,000 annual operations, while the Colorado State System Plan forecasts 604,000 operations for that same year. (See Figure 4) In order to identify a reliable baseline number of operations, the partial year 1988 weather observation tower count was used. It is important to note that these counts are only taken during the period that the tower is open. During the months of January through March, the tower is manned from 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. From April through August, the tower is open from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; in the remaining months, September through December, the tower is open from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Discussions with the airport manager and other airport users indicate that a substantial number of aircraft operations occur during the time when the III-1 9(0322 FIGURE 4 Greeley—Weld County Airport AVIATION FORECASTS 800000 + 5010 -0 FAA-TAF x NIPIAS 600000 4- CO-ASP ISBILL 84 ISBILL 78 0 Q 400000 w 0_ 0 200000 0 lilt N- p u7 coco° o u� m m 0) m m m Co rn c\ip YEAR III-2 tower is closed. Consequently, these operations are not accurately accounted for. Evidence that supports this statement is the fact that routine student flight training occurs until midnight. It is estimated that an average of 15 to 20 percent of all operations at the airport are not counted. Using this factor, it is estimated that the total number of operations for the year 1988 will be approximately 190,000. Based Aircraft The number of based aircraft at an airport is an indicator of general aviation demand. Since 1978, the number of based aircraft at the Greeley-Weld County Airport has increased by approximately 115. The number of businesses, corporations and individuals that own an aircraft within Weld County is currently stable and new aircraft ownership is expected to increase as the City and County population also increases. The relationship between area wide population and based aircraft was tested to determine a factor for based aircraft per 10,000 people. According to the National Plan for Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) 1986-1995, the average number of aircraft per 10,000 people in Colorado is 18. This factor was calculated for both the City of Greeley and Weld County as a whole. Coincidentally the factor for Weld County as a whole is also 18. Using this factor of based aircraft per 10,000 people with the population forecasts obtained from the Weld County Planning Department, the forecast of based aircraft was determined. Table III-1 presents the based aircraft forecasts. TABLE III-1 BASED AIRCRAFT FORECASTS Weld Co. Year Population Total Single Twin T-ProD Est. ActT Hell 1988 59,030 255 236 15 0 2 2 Forecast 1992 70,000 277 244 22 4 3 4 1997 76,600 300 254 30 6 4 6 2007 85,000 347 273 46 12 6 10 III-3 9C0322 ANNUAL GENERAL AVIATION OPERATIONS There are two types of general aviation operations at an airport: Local and itinerant. A local operation is defined as a takeoff or landing performed by an aircraft that operates within the local traffic pattern, within sight of the airport or which executes practice approaches or "touch-and-go operations? Itinerant operations are performed by an aircraft with a specific origin or destination away from the airport. The percentage of local operations has increased over the past two years due to the increase in training aviation. In recent years, estimated annual general aviation operations at the Greeley-Weld County Airport have declined from 219,840 in 1980 to 193,510 in 1986. This decline, however, is characteristic of other airports throughout the country and reflects the existing economic conditions at the time. Air traffic during the winter season at the airport is down due to decreases in itinerant as well as agricultural operations due in part to winter weather. Table II1-2 presents the historical compilation of general aviation operations from FAA Master Record Form 5010 for the years 1976-1986. Over this period activity estimates have fluctuated considerably from a low of 111,000 operations in 1986 to a high of 225,660 operations in 1983. It is understood that the source of these estimates have varied from airport management reports to the limited acoustical traffic counts performed by the Colorado Division of Local Affairs. TABLE III-2 GREELEY-WELD COUNTY AIRPORT OPERATIONS GENERAL AVIATION OPERATIONS FAA ESTIMATES Year Total Air Taxi Local Itinerant Military 1977 216,155 840 147,450 66,916 949 1978 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1979 205,840 3,800 139,000 63,000 40 1980 219,840 3,800 118,000 98,000 40 1981 214,040 --- 107,000 107,000 40 1982 225,660 600 118,000 106,700 360 1983 225,660 600 118,000 106,700 360 1984 193,510 150 101,000 92,000 360 1985 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1986 111,000 100 57,900 52,800 200 Since January 1988, the airport has conducted a count of operations by aircraft type in the airport operated observation tower. This facility is also used to provide UNICOM advisories and weather observation data recording. The 1988 count is shown in Table II1-3 and provides the most realistic baseline for future traffic projections. It should be noted that due to the III-4 limited hours that the tower is attended, approximately 83 percent of all operations are recorded. By averaging the partial year statistics over a full year it was determined that the 1988 total operations will be approximately 190,000. This averaging consist of figuring 15% of the total operations occur at night and 85% during daylight hours. This 15% can not be accounted for because of the weather tower being closed. Another consideration for increased traffic counts occurs in the jet category. Jet departures usually occur early in the morning and many arrivals are after the weather tower closes. An approximation of one half the business jet operations are not counted because of the pattern of business men leaving early and returning late. TABLE III-3 1988 GENERAL AVIATION OPERATIONS Light Heavy Crop- Month Single Twin Twin Duster Jet Heli Total — Jan 8,222 289 74 0 53 64 8,702 Feb 8,174 312 112 2 20 80 8,700 Mar 8,069 330 40 14 40 37 8,530 Apr 13,207 553 58 140 63 66 14,087 May 11,644 399 86 224 43 34 12,430 Jun 13,829 646 90 172 77 63 14,877 Jul 15,773 769 63 811 49 206 17,671 Aug 15,821 670 54 181 48 70 16,844 Sep 11,043 490 72 27 49 77 13,600 Oct 15,382 680 257 0 53 6 16,378 Nov 12,991 365 107 0 45 14 13,522 Dec 9,914 747 111 0 58 19 10,849 Total 144,069 6,250 1,124 1,571 598 736 154,348 88 Est. 172,883 7,500 1,349 1,885 1,196 883 185,696 Aircraft Operations Forecasts Total aircraft operations for 1988 through 1991 were forecasted using the current average number of 745 operations per based aircraft. This number is larger than that experienced at most general aviation airports. This is due to the unusually high percentage of training operations that occur at the Greeley-Weld County Airport. Discussions with the flight schools at the airport indicate that the number of training flights will continue to increase in the near future. A factor of 750 operations per based aircraft was used in the forecast of aircraft operations for the years 1992 to 2007. III-5 9C0322 Forecasts for student flight training operations assume flight demands will continue to occur throughout the year. A review of the observation tower records reveals that weekend traffic is on the average, 40 percent less than that during the week. Peak use hours occur in the morning between 8:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. Night training flights are conducted until midnight. Using the projection of flight training by the schools that were interviewed, the number of touch-and-go operations will approach 150,000 operations by the end of 1988. Current estimates of local (training) activity as a percentage of total operations were made on the basis of airport user interviews. Based on these discussions, it is assumed that the local operations represent approximately 75 percent of all aircraft activity. Table III-4, Aircraft Operations Fleet Mix Forecasts, illustrates a 27 percent increase in both local and itinerant operations from an estimated 190,000 in 1989 increasing to 260,000 in 2007. This increase is based upon an increase in training operations and an overall increase in the number of based aircraft at Greeley-Weld County Airport. TABLE 111-4 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS FLEET MIX FORECAST Year Total Single Twin T-Proo at. Bali. Est. Actual 1989 190,000 178,400 8,000 1,500 1,200 900 Fore. 1992 208,000 192,000 11,000 2,400 1,600 1,000 1997 225,000 204,700 14,000 3,300 1,900 1,100 2007 260,000 231,000 20,000 5,000 2,600 1,400 SUMMARY The Greeley-Weld County Airport has become a primary training facility and will continue to see an increase in student flight operations. Since no accurate historical record of aircraft operations exist, the partial year statistics compiled by the weather observation tower personnel was used. The total number of operations for 1989 is expected to reach 190,000. If the current upward trend continues, total general operations in 2007 are forecasted to reach 260,000. 111-6 During the first five years, forecasts can be considered reasonably accurate, however, as one projects further into the future, forecasts may become less accurate due to unforseen fluctuations in the economy and general aviation industry. Therefore,an extremely optimistic forecast may not be as usable as a conservative "more realistic" forecast. The forecasts developed for the Greeley-Weld County Airport are based on actual traffic counts, forecasts of flight training schools and a continuation of an increase in overall general aviation activity seen in the Colorado Front Range. These forecasts are felt to be more conservative than overly optimistic. The conservative forecast can be attributed to the higher cost of fuel, insurance and economic recession in the area. However, increases have been recorded in training activity and business aircraft using Greeley-Weld County Airport. Business flying, using more sophisticated turbo- prop and executive aircraft have not been affected by higher operating costs as severely as private individual use. While FAA forecasts show business aircraft traffic leveling off,actual data shows an increase in larger business aircraft using the airport. Recent increases in executive jet operations are related to a major business, Monfort of Colorado, a subsidiary of ConAgra Corporation which presently bases two business jet aircraft at Greeley-Weld County Airport. This type of airport use is projected to increase throughout the twenty year period. At Greeley-Weld County Airport, the aircraft fleet mix has not varied much over the last five years. By the year 2007 business jet activity will be expected to be over 2,600 operations per year with 245,000 single engine operations. Currently, business jets are considered the critical aircraft for the airport and various improvements will have to made to accommodate these aircraft. III-7 9CC322 IV. DEMAND CAPACITY ANALYSIS 3Q0322 �`� age _ IV. DEMAND/CAPACITY ANALYSIS INTRODUCTION This chapter evaluates the demand and capacity of existing and proposed runway configurations. The demand/capacity analysis is useful for determining the ability of an airport facility to service the current level of flight activity. The capacity of the facility is determined by techniques outlined in the FAA Advisory Circular 150/5060-5. The calculated capacity is measured against the facility demand to determine the adequacy of various runway layouts. Two runway configurations are evaluated in the section: existing and existing with an added parallel runway. METHODOLOGY The methodology outlined in the FAA Advisory Circular 150/5060-5 for computing Annual Service Volume (ASV or Airport Capacity) is defined as the maximum level of annual aircraft operations that can be efficiently accommodated at the airport and is derived from the following three elements: Weighted Hourly Capacity (Cw): Maximum hourly capacity with consideration to factors such as aircraft mix,meteorological conditions, touch and go activity, and exit factor. Daily Demand Ratio (D): The amount of annual aircraft operations divided by the daily aircraft operations accommodated during the peak month. Hourly Demand Ratio (H): Amount of average daily operations during the peak month divided by the amount of peak hourly operations during the peak month. The mathematical expression used is to calculate ASV is: ASVorC = 'CxHxD Additional factors are accounted for in the determination of airfield capacity, they are explained in the following paragraphs. Calculations and formulas for these factors follow the descriptions. IV-1 9C0322 AIRFIELD CONFIGURATION Airfield configuration refers to the runway location and orientation. Proper utilization of the runways directly contributes to the efficiency of the airport operations, therefore, effecting maximum runway capacity. Direction and the type of operations also impact the magnitude of the runway capacity. The Greeley-Weld County Airport layout consists of a primary runway (9/27), a full length taxiway parallel to runway 9/27 and a secondary runway (17/35). Runway 9/27 extends 6,200 feet in length and 100 feet in width. The recently constructed secondary runway (17/35) extends 3,600 feet in length and 75 feet in width. The following diagram shows the existing runway layout (configuration I), and the alternative existing layout with the addition of a parallel runway (configuration II). CONFIGURATION I ARRIVAL -f DEPARTURE - 1, IV-2 CONFIGURATION II ARRIVAL -f DEPARTURE o o METEOROLOGY The FAA Advisory Circular defines three categories of ceiling and visibility minimums, VFR, IFR and PCV. Visual flight rule(VFR) conditions occur when the cloud ceiling falls 1000 feet or more above ground level and visibility exceeds three statute miles. Instrument flight rule (IFR)conditions exist when the cloud ceiling falls between 500 and 1000 feet above ground level and visibility conditions lie within the range of one to three statute miles. The third weather condition to be considered is classified as poor ceiling and visibility (PCV) and exists when the cloud ceiling lies below 500 feet from ground level and visibility is less than one statute mile. Analysis of existing wind rose conditions provides a breakdown of the annual occurrence for each of the above conditions. VFR weather conditions occur 93.5 percent of the year. IFR conditions exist approximately 4 percent of the year, and PCV conditions exist the remaining 2.5 percent of the year. Although, VFR conditions generally exist, both IFR and PCV conditions are factored into runway capacity. Published procedures for the Greeley-Weld County Airport permit IFR approaches down to typical ILS minimums of 200 feet ceiling and 1/2 mile visibility. Current approach plates are included on the following pages. IV-3 90322 N _ a Y I z .*-.< e 3 a e o F _ C., ` < Z z � Y 3 o 4 > o IN - � g = 8 n g 'oo9s 1=ps Z ict _ s n i ,Y < R ( r$ 'g w z n 3C _- - ��VVVV' ) 1�ia—: I - g • Yg :. M L ' << s ' u' - 3 ' > fir. - 8 o = _ Ci if- -46 I d ^ : ^ 1 N a< ^ ._ 8 ,0 0 _l -3 _ - a i5 u.co _ a/ a a w c Q o 3 b 24 N - II $ 3. u. w San o nW O J - e-( 3 Y. >if c z m O h- 6' _ m ' p < Y - -_ g2 V _ - 00 O m 1- ° 3 el S x 5 - s `6 `y ° i P. W v3N' EE 8. S I l =aag ' 00 ' m W _ • _ n ew. < a}- W h R - '^ r n 3 ' ... a o i ¢- $ s IL c, r3 - M C7 Z W i , i , , i A I , , 3 4 n OL < n - c :-.. ii �. 00 �g :$ = S 000` xIm , v T 0 ; N O c ,a v 5 g — a' s u+ CK 02 i °S� �i 3' $A n pm m \ i W: `� n h h h W m 2 W lu' Ci! ' ' m m m_ W Z < o .�'"e_1 \ in in i c Si 1,_a 68 3 Yf N N 0 f w r N d F ° t0 \ O < d' u g g .- r 0 AO �r FI O ur 2- a I o 0 E f ,� o 'r "U" o l7 " 3:I 1 0 0 O _. ^OBl y n i N i $ 14 in to in $ � `•� 1 % a' �` I<Im u c C m \,2 �a 0 _ b �< 01 / % .i O o f.18 - n m m 2 d 3 0 _ m -„,•-<-1; xi -r °f O �' ,c O,-, _ ya 0� yV t Sm NyL ,O €— �. r m F_ xi 1 LL (� 3� fV VC i �' J Z — ^ h iN ~ ^ O _ M Ol Iry CO < A c 5`j� �,— gg `�' a` $! I J 8 3 ' n v c0 t aU' S `m ° V .-nS .� N @@ . n H 3 E C _ O h •S <` $ n I o — - 2 O O i a O h a`r< • IS a ; 5, y ii q.# O 'i Z ,.. g i I F W 8 8 Tu 8 9 3 A R LsO M ; I d F 91 01' & WN i•It I 0 r , , G .1 Wza -- IV-4 O O P X N -0-.: vmi -03 ;g _ Nggg:V J 1 0i . QOnw.� hhh1 $ - .�W dIN . =co: SmV ° 0bT .. e3 N o iW s o. , m : I. in-, o O f !r v lQ- 03k; a.I �� a V ;< uQivQja: �NdflO ron F N 88�F 1� / a u X'1_ Q n s�- h0 / a 8 9ice FUSt0 % sZiA/ /% 0 V p< m mr=ap �� C / V ILL < F NI!1 -ia081y� P - mI G omQ T / - oN s II C _ N � N2 C Ti 3 - e 8e < ^ co w O V fOm`I \ N CmO ul - e. - fcN Si a/o// //'•,. a N _n�; gtr::; %‘...m Fq ` IWll � N W _ell,. N u g F C4 g le n "I 9o'In 1‘10A,ci0 61I, < , < ! o o• Z - N �C v O g N IX h* Q tit s 9 m N Co. wl eIii'- -y g< a; r;n s q*4g i oa ` _ igs id i �a W 8 a 3 i4 ! 9 I o < it 0.2-. V' <Iasi u I 0 0Ia o ,3 'sl m' s' YIN Smut OF IIIs — O0Q . • - '— v I Oita"Oa c.,; ; '''04 m • Z Z _ N uEll o W W a 13 £ 2 h h h r., Rt. _ 3 — A j 2 2 Z. p 1: W L\ N N in h W2 a' O 8 c Z C7 <� osO N ? i 8 FV 160.-� ,e \ I-mil } as c „ . o - _ N m a N 0 toes,' o'i R O 3 <O 0 0 O p Q O .0 O b p O___ in n a N N N N co o se el .:r - _ _ _ m w .« lee o ry p 2 IN o1 L. N p i h !r.E // O 1 ' O C J g E �. �'. h I� ry ? O m <O I C <-m i� O 'x ; N N N c N U I co �% T 'ciao,— N N cl g OD 2,1 m tI M s g c--- v I a oa U' 3 o \\ : s 8 1 3 e � � � 3 CV 7cq�� (ei ; L h h h h N .• 99u 11 s Q < o N CO r 4�o 11, 31 5 Si 6 . m z 'X N N in in i .c. ,. paj g ; a - n € 3Y �I O- < W 8 g g $ i s 5.1 Om t < m u c x .csno .- (Si CPC S' WN S.uI I at I I l I S 9CO322 IV-5 Investigation of various wind patterns play an important role in determining the runway use and configuration which contribute maximum efficiency. Ideally,runways should be oriented in the direction which produces the strongest wind. In most cases, wind patterns vary considerably and additional runways are needed. The Federal Aviation Administration guidelines indicate that a utility airport runway system should provide 95 percent usability for 12 mile-per-hour crosswinds. The Greeley-Weld County Airport can support aircraft operations 97.8 percent of the year under all weather conditions. AIRCRAFT MIX Aircraft mix is one of the factors used for computing runway capacity. Aircraft types are classified into four categories which are defined by weight. Classes A and B consist of small propeller aircraft and jets, weighing 12,500 pounds or less. Classes C and D include large jet and propeller aircraft generally associated with airline and military use. Greeley-Weld County Airport most commonly services class A and B aircraft. PERCENT TOUCH-AND-GO OPERATIONS A touch-and-go operation refers to a simultaneous landing and takeoff, and is commonly performed by training aircraft. At the Greeley-Weld County Airport a large percentage of operations are training related therefore, a high touch-and-go factor is introduced into the capacity calculations. PERCENT ARRIVALS The relationship between the percentage of aircraft arriving and aircraft departing from an airport during peak hour influences the capacity of the runway. As the number of aircraft arriving exceeds the number of aircraft departing, the annual service volume is decreased. At the Greeley-Weld County Airport arrivals and departures were equal during the peak period. IV-6 EXIT FACTOR The ability of an aircraft to efficiently exit a runway directly affects the occupancy time that must be allocated to each airfield operation. As a result, runway capacity is reduced. Although Poor pavement condition and improper utilization of a taxiway are not considered in the capacity analysis they will impact the occupancy time. ANNUAL SERVICE VOLUME (ASV) CALCULATIONS Based on the evaluation of the variables described above, the weighted hourly capacity is determined. Combined this term with current daily and hourly demand ratios yield the expected ASV for existing and future conditions. ASV = C(W) xDxH CONFIGURATION I ASV = (78)(272)(9.62) = 204,100 ops/year CONFIGURATION II ASV = (105)(272)(9.62) = 274,800 ops/year CONCLUSIONS Capacity analysis results indicate that the existing runway system will be adequate until the year 1992. Currently, the runway configuration for the Greeley-Weld Airport can service 204,100 operations per year. Aircraft operation forecasts show annual operations increasing to 208,000 by 1992, making it necessary to construct an additional runway. Future predictions show the aircraft activity for the year 2007 increasing to 260,000 annual operations per day. The theoretical maximum capacity of the present configuration of Greeley-Weld County Airport exceeds the demand by 7 percent. Adding a runway will not only increase the airport efficiency for the local traffic but, will make it more desirable for business flights due to on time scheduling. It is important to remember that the above forecasts and calculations are based on average not peak flight operations. Therefore, it is advisable to add an additional runway before 1992 due to the number of months of near peak activity at the airport. Consideration must also be given to the changing fleet mix occurring at Greeley-Weld County Airport. The increase use of the airport by faster business aircraft and the increased training activity present potential conflicts within the traffic pattern. This conflict is considered a safety hazard with operations at or near peak conditions a majority of the time. The addition of a parallel training runway will reduce the chances of further conflict among aircraft using the airport. IV-7 900322 V. F&.,ILITY REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES 9C0322 V. FACILITY REQUIREMENTS AND ALTERNATIVES INTRODUCTION As demonstrated in the previous sections of this report, it will be necessary to expand the facilities at the Greeley-Weld County Airport. Timing of these improvements will be dependent upon several factors, including: the accuracy of the demand/capacity analyses; a review of development alternatives; and the financial capability of the Sponsor to support the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). In most planning efforts the forecasted activity levels play a significant role in the identification of development proposals. In this study however,existing demands support most of the expansion requirements. For this reason the Facility Requirements outlined in the following text should be viewed as immediate demands and long-range proposals which should be protected for. FACILITY REQUIREMENTS Runwavq The number of runways, facility configuration and dimensional standards are dictated by the demand/capacity relationship, weather conditions and critical aircraft using the facility. • To accommodate the demand for existing touch-and-go traffic at the airport, an additional runway will be required in the short-term development plan. This need is documented in the capacity calculations and supports the findings of previous plans for the airport. • The existing runway configuration consisting of a primary runway and crosswind runway must be maintained to provide the required crosswind coverage of greater than 95 percent. • Dimensions of these runways should accommodate the critical aircraft. Business Jets constitute the critical aircraft for the primary runway while small single engine aircraft requirements will dictate the size of facility required for the training runway. The crosswind runway should have the ability to accommodate all small aircraft under crosswind conditions. V-1 900322 The following table outlines the suggested dimensions and strengths proposed for the runways needed at the Greeley-Weld County Airport. Type Length Width Strength Primary (Existing) 6,200 feet 100 feet 18,000* SWG (Phase I) 8,500 feet 100 feet 18,000* SWG (Phase II-III) 10,000 feet 100 feet 60,000* DWG Crosswind (Existing) 3,500 feet 75 feet 8,000* SWG (Future) 5,000 feet 75 feet 12,500* SWG Parallel (Existing) N/A N/A N/A (Future) 4,400 feet 60 feet 8,000* SWG Taxiways Full parallel taxiways should be provided for the primary and crosswind runways. A 35- foot width should be adequate for both runways in the short term, however, widening to 50 feet may be required for the primary parallel to accommodate demands of larger aircraft in the long-range plan. Strengths should be provided to compliment the adjacent runway pavement section. A 25-foot width is proposed for the connecting taxiways to the touch-and- go runway. Apron & Hangar Areas There is an expressed need for additional itinerant apron area in the short-term planning of the airport. Although tiedown capacity for based aircraft is considered marginally adequate, peak itinerant traffic periods necessitate the movement of aircraft adjacent to the terminal building to provide space for large transient corporate aircraft parking. Due to the increased weight loads associated with business aircraft the Itinerant Apron requires an overlay which will conform to these increased weights. The requirement for increased pavement strength comes from recent occurrences of several business aircraft falling through the apron at several locations. The following table outlines anticipated hangar and apron area requirements throughout the planning period. The Colorado Army National Guard has recently made inquiries to a west portion of airport property adjoining the current T-Hangars. If an agreement is reached by the Colorado National Guard and the Greeley-Weld Airport Authority, land previously planned for T- Hangar development will be lost. The proposed T-Hangar development is shown on Exhibit II. A central location between the existing T-Hangars and Aerial Spraying Services could be V-2 developed for T-Hangar construction. This location is readily accessible and has been leveled from previous projects. HANGAR AND TIEDOWN REQUIREMENTS .211 1222 1227 200Z Z2 Based Aircraft 255 277 300 323 347 Hangared (80%) 204 222 240 258 278 Tiedowns (20%) 51 55 60 65 69 360 SY/TD 18,360 19,944 21,600 23,256 24,984 Itinerant Operations 47,500 52,000 56,300 60,600 65,000 Itinerant Tiedowns 36 39 42 46 49 360 SY/TD 12,884 14,104 15,270 16,437 17,630 TOTAL S.Y. 31.244 34.048 36.870 39.693 42.614 TOTAL TIEDOWNS 87 95 102 110 118 It is assumed in this plan that the airport sponsor will provide additional apron areas with Federal Grant Assistance and private interests will be responsible for a hangar development. Navigational Aid% As discussed in the Inventory portion of this study, the Greeley-Weld County Airport is equipped with a full compliment of navigational aids. The addition of a parallel runway will require the construction of a FAA manned Air Traffic Control Tower, however, the demand for this facility is currently being reviewed by the Planning and Automation Branch Manager of the FAA Regional office in Seattle. It is anticipated the control tower establishment criteria will be met in Phase I of this plan. The existing InstruMent Landing System and MALSR are installed for approaches to Runway 9. With the completion of the new primary north-south runway (see discussion of alternatives) the ILS/MALSR facilities should be relocated for approaches to Runway 35L. This relocation will improve IFR wind coverage from the current 91.7 percent on Runway 9/27 to 94.3 percent on Runway 17R/35L. The installation of an Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) is also considered a desirable addition to the airport. This system would provide pilots using the Greeley airport V-3 900322 with valuable real time weather information on area weather conditions. Installation of an AWOS is programmed for 1990 with 100 percent FAA funding. Fuel Facilities Underground fuel facilities are included in new EPA regulations governing the installation and monitoring of existing and new installations. Table V-1 gives a brief summary of financial responsibilities, monitoring requirements and compliance,timetable for compliance, corrosion protection and spill and overfill protection. With these new EPA requirements regarding the installation and monitoring of underground fueling tanks taking effect, it is suggested that replacement of the existing fueling facilities be considered as soon as practicable. These improvements are planned for the Phase II time frame. A location which provides easy access from both landside and airside facilities is preferred. Landside Facility Reauirements The present terminal is located within the Building Restriction Line (BRL). To remedy this situation and alleviate part of the congestion associated with the present terminal, a new terminal should be constructed. The ideal location for the new terminal would be directly south of the present structure outside the BRL. This new complex would incorporate the proposed Control Tower and added office space for aviation related businesses. The location would be centrally located and enhance tower operations. The increased office space would be used for aviation related businesses and provide an area for businesses to hold conferences with out of town associates. The new terminal complex would provide a source of additional revenue for Greeley-Weld County Airport. Terminal relocation would also assist in increasing the Terminal Apron. The apron could be expanded over the existing terminal building location. This would benefit the terminal and apron by alleviating existing congestion that occurs around and inside the terminal facility. DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES The preceding discussion of facility needs provide the basis for developing alternative expansion concepts. Four basic alternatives were considered to provide the facilities required to meet the existing and future users of the airport. These alternatives included expansion to the east, west, north and development of an auxiliary training facility elsewhere in the county. V-4 TABLE V-1 WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO DO? Minimum Requirements You must have Leak Detection, Corrosion Protection, and Spill/Overfill Prevention. LEAK DETECTION NEW TANKS • Monthly Monitoring' 2 Choices • Monthly Inventory Control and Tank Tightness Testing Every 5 Years (You can only use this choice for 10 years after installation.) EXISTING TANKS • Monthly Monitoring* 3 Choices • Monthly Inventory Control and Annual Tank Tightness Testing The chart at the bottom of (This choice can only be used until December 1998.) the next page displays • Monthly Inventory Control and Tank Tightness Testing Every 5 Years these choices. (This choice can only be used for 10 spill/overfill prevention or until December 199e adding hich whichever date i prier) and x:hewr date is later.) NEW 3 EXISTING • Automatic Flow Restrictor • Annual Line Testing PRESSURIZED PIPING • Automatic Shutoff Device -and- • MonthlyMon Mon itoring' Choice of one from each set • Continuous Alarm System (except automatic tank gauging) NEW& EXISTING • Monthly Monitoring* SUCTION PIPING (except automatic tank gauging) 3 Choices • Line Testing Every 3 Years • No Requirements (if the system has the characteristics described on page 11) CORROSION PROTECTION NEW TANKS • Coated and Cathodically Protected Steel 3 Choices • Fiberglass • Steel Tank clad with Fiberglass EXISTING TANKS • Same Options as for New Tanks 4 Choices • Add Cathodic Protection System • Interior Lining • Interior Lining and Cathodic Protection NEW PIPING • Coated and Cathodically Protected Steel 2 Choices • Fiberglass EXISTING PIPING • Same Options as for New Piping 2 Choices • Cathodically Protected Steel SPILL/ OVERFILL PREVENTION ALL TANKS • Catchment Basins -and- • Automatic Shutoff Devices -or- • Overfill Alarms -or- • Ball Float Valves ' Monthly Monitoring includes: Automatic Tank Gauging Ground-Water Monitoring Vapor Monitoring Other Approved Methods Interstitial Monitoring V-5 9€0322 WHEN DO YOU HAVE TO ACT? Important Deadlines TYPE OF LEAK CORROSION TANK& PIPING DETECTION PROTECTION PR PRE VENVEN 1TI ON New Tanks and Piping* At installation At installation At installation Existing Tanks" Installed: By No Later Than: Before 1965 or unknown December 1989 1965- 1969 December 1990 1970. 1974 December 1991 December 1998 1975 - 1979 December 1992 December 1998 1980- December 1988 December 1993 Existing Piping" Pressurized December 1990 December 1998 Suction Same as existing December 1998 Does not apply tanks Does not apply • New tanks and piping are those installed after December 1988 Existing tanks and piping are those installed before December 1988 IF YOU CHOOSE TANK TIGHTNESS TESTING AT EXISTING USTs . . . If you donl use monthly monitoring at existing USTs, you must use a combination of periodic tank tightness tests and monthly inventory control This combined method can only be used for a few years, as the chart below displays. Was the UST`upgraded; Was it'upgraded" Do monthly inventory which means does it have YES control and a tank tightness corrosion protection and December m 1988? YES toot o than coomn until spilUoverfill prevention 1998;than do monthly devices? monitoring. NO NO Do monthly inventory Do monthly inventory control and a tank tightness test swam until 1998; control and a tank for 10 then"upgrade'. For test ol avery 5 upgre for '; "upgraded"USTs. use theyears do monthly after• ding box on the right. then do monitoring. V-6 The following narrative concentrates on the development of runways and land requirements, as other development requirements can be met within the confines of the existing airport property. While the focus of discussion has been on length requirements for the primary runway, the alternatives should also examine those actions necessary to maintain a crosswind runway at a useable length for the primary user. Previously in this section a table (page V- 2) of suggested dimensions and strengths were proposed for both the primary, parallel and crosswind runway. The suggested length for the crosswind runway is 5,000 feet. This recommended crosswind runway length should be evaluated in all the alternatives including those which provide for the extension of the existing primary runway. Only expanding to the north would require only one runway to be expanded. Alternatives A and C would require extension of both the primary and crosswind runways. Any extension to the present crosswind runway will result in either the closure of a portion of County Road 62 or the construction of a bridge over County Road 62. Because of the limited use of County Road 62, a bridging structure would be an inefficient use of Local, State and Federal funding. Associated cost estimates are provided for the short-term construction. Land acquisition and relocation of person costs are provided but should be viewed as approximate only. ALTERNATIVE "A" Development to the West (See Figure V-5) This alternative was proposed in the 1978 Master Plan and subsequently rejected due to required road closures, relocation of persons and potential noise impacts to the City of Greeley. Relocation of the ILS glide slope facility, MALSR and PAPI would be necessary. Closure of Cherry Avenue and rerouting the portion of Bliss Road, that would be crossed by the runway safety area construction, would be required. Land acquisition of approximately 150 acres of land and the relocation of at least five households would also be required. Nine buildings presently within the Building Restriction Line must be removed and the eastern end of the parallel taxiway must be reconstructed at 400 feet from the runway centerline. The FAA Denver Enroute Center has pointed out that an interaction conflict presently occurs between the Fort Collins-Loveland Airport's ILS and the Greeley-Weld County Airport's ILS. The Alternative "A"proposal would only add to this conflict of ILS procedures for pilots using the two airports. The major disadvantage to this alternative is land acquisition from several different owners and continued and increased overflight impacts to the City of Greeley. Although the 65 Ldn contour would not impact the City, increased frequency of overflights can be viewed as undesirable. Construction of a parallel runway would force traffic patterns on the primary runway to be relocated to the south with the base leg directly over downtown Greeley. V-7 9C0322 ALTERNATIVE "B" Development to the North (See Figure V-6) This alternative would involve the extension and development of the existing crosswind runway as the primary runway. Relocation of the existing ILS facilities, land acquisition of approximately 280 acres of land and relocation of possibly two or three households would be required. This alternative would relieve much of the overflight concerns to the City, however, the closure of two county roads could emerge as an issue. Improvements to alternative access roads north of the airport would be necessary. Relocation of existing oil pumping and water injection stations will also be required. Reconstruction of the existing parallel taxiway or relocation of existing hangars would not be needed under this alternative. This proposed alignment of the primary runway would not produce any negative ILS interactions with surrounding airports, such as Fort Collins-Loveland. Alternative "B" will actually reduce the existing ILS conflict as explained in Alternative "A". ALTERNATIVE "C" Development to the East (See Figure V-7) Any extension of Runway 9/27 to the east would require the relocation or the structural bridging of State Highway 263. The relocation of the ILS localizer facility would be necessary as well. Ultimate extension of the runway to 10,000 feet would bring the Cache La Poudre River within the runway safety area, which is a graded area extending 1,000 feet beyond the runway end. Since this river is classified as a "Wild and Scenic River" by the National Park Service, it is unlikely that relocation of the river bed out of the safety area would easily be accomplished. Other environmental factors that must be considered would include the disturbance of any wetlands associated with the river, and overflight impacts to the City of Greeley. Falling terrain to the east of the highway would also require extensive fill to meet the required runway grades. Land acquisition would consist of approximately 130 acres with no relocation of persons necessary. Land acquisition costs for this alternative are expected to be less than other alternatives. However, construction costs and environmental impacts would be excessive. ALTERNATIVE "D" Develop an Auxiliary Training Runway During the course of the study a review of this alternative was requested by an airport users group as a means to reduce facility demands. This development is not considered a viable alternative to the expansion of the Greeley-Weld County Airport as it would not negate the need to provide for large corporate aircraft. Development of an alternate touch-and-go airfield would require acquisition of additional land, construction of access roads, extension of utilities, installation of lights and provisions for responding to emergencies. Although this V-8 O w 441 O CC a. e W r q tl z r $ . . , Y ,- - g '' ' F \i , i * SLaWa Ee3a8 • ill OBE \it F 1 xk I 1 n i_ Y— .G SAIR)itF• ' II `, RY /� /W ,'✓ 'a\' ' sNiR° -- INN m. ll .J r ��,� • -I, ��_ W I, of m •••-_, t hg 1 i i •' q Z g In CC — �� >. wQ �� ::\\ _i) C44 oF-,4 III: F ak i. 44 I II $� F L_—_ G1 C \ _ .. —T_ W Ii P.12 I_ N Z i ri;- \- I� �1 W a a 41 I I IJ V. M 0 1 1 \ i 8�.8 . Z IYJ i3 pp 00 r ,-.1\ - a.\ w .i a s N L \ -,,,\ r ' 4 ma N co .\----:----- 9. , ON) 036) ••• , s 1 \ LT: T., a 1, -' ` A "a *�\ he/6 AV4NIlel ONI.LSIX.7 m. A M • _ I ti v �mum __ Av\® i L______ _ \ , \1 s .J ow \ S j�2IL! AVAINIThI (US�..Otld► \^\ .�.`j .• A.LX3dOWd ONLLSIX. ggi 2I3E/7Ll ` �9 .IVJtNl12I Q3SOd0?Id \ � • — \\\• ..; \ \i •fir\ 1 • , •: W \\ \ • , h `\ \L ` \ \ 61101N00 0.13013 `4= — It \ �i Nod33s x hilli II \\ \ \ s \ (0.01136 3e 01)5011.71316 1613.1 Cl] q �• 1 \ ; ,1 61601,163NILLN ®Ea \ \ 5.111(r1(16',S, — NO \ \ 1\\ \\ 111104 33113113.4311 11:10.11V • '�\ \^ 33.33VLLM13 331.0161.3 X— 's•:� \\ \ 3Nn N0.16133d:NNI3re — g` ` \\\ \�� 3W AUL3doMd RM. --- \ \ 3161 ALNldO•d 01,11.3 \\\ \ `, 1N3ndol3,30 33YLLN \ \\‘ \\ 1113.4013/30,.m W `\ vNasrr IIIMJ \ \ b ICC \ x \ VA\ \`\\•a\\\ �a \\ 1\.0 1,i A.L≥LLdOdd lMI1(INIJV 3Wfl Lai , `l ` \ "i.\ Z ca a N , VAp - ,�a ��1 ' 4.1 v I: \' ` t;..� a k 0 \ 1', 4. , 14. \____________=____.--- N- N>. cc w c- CO D 7 0 6, 0. zir, t°rig � JN► � y ,, r t i I I I I7� L I W l: y ... \in_________ a. y -� .. qq ..),---\ W t BISON /' I ', F R�I[0 ! � \\\ .. _h poi' � ®l �' �i Q / z LO i N e( -- m ..:cr • CC LYSTeµ16 oA%L. ' a .' h W � I III 1,44 c44 N. ' 1 MA ay € ol1\ 1i E....a) L d I y f' /I I I • L^ J r R N y I /r / a H , / 1 ' io 0 o s io \ I g$ l.� � a H R 4. , I @ I / w ` : _ la § 6 � o d i i W$ yy 4 yy $ p ay 6 I��L 1 I U r 5 K g d « 7 $ F 5 6 ; c I ? — I/ I S S ' S ' " 2 3 d 8 k y // d II •, a x yp'1\, • \ y / ruaoN Jlurarn a x ; !\ I F 4J proposal would seem to be a logical solution to airport traffic congestion, it would essentially require the development of a completely new airport in order to provide a desirable alternate. ALTERNATE DEVELOPMENT COSTS The following tables outline the comparative costs for constructing the alternative concepts. ALTERNATIVE "A" - Extend Runway 9/27 West Total Cost FAA Share Sponsor Share Land $1,440,000 $1,296,000 $144,000 Reroute Bliss Road 102,000 91,800 10,200 Site Preparation 875,000 787,500 87,500 Relocate Navaids 215,000 193,000 21,500 Pave Runway and Taxiway 706,000 635,400 70,600 Remove Building from BRL 350,000 315,000 35,000 Extend Parallel Taxiway 391,000 351,900 39,100 Parallel T/W to Xwind 335,000 301,500 33,500 Extend Crosswind Runway 250,000 225,000 25,000 Parallel Runway 788.000 709.200 78.800 Total $5,452,000 $4,906,800 $551,200 ALTERNATIVE "B" - Extend Runway 17/35 North Total Cost FAA Share Sponsor Share Land $1,368,000 $1,231,200 $136,800 Pave County Road 150,000 135,000 15,000 Site Preparation 1,558,000 1,402,200 155,800 Relocate Navaids 500,000 450,000 50,000 Pave Runway and Taxiway 1,661,000 1,494,900 166,100 Modify Oil Wells 300,000 270,000 30,000 Parallel Runway 764.000 687.000 76.400 Total $6,301,000 $5,670,900 $630,100 ALTERNATIVE "C" - Extend Runway 9/27Eaat Total Cost FAA Share Sponsor Share Land $317,000 $285,300 $31,700 Bridge State Highway 263 2,773,000 2,495,700 277,300 Site Preparation 2,370,000 2,133,000 237,000 Relocate Navaids 156,000 140,000 15,000 Pave Runway and Taxiway 614,000 552,620 61,400 Remove Building from BRL 350,000 315,000 35,000 Extend Parallel Taxiway 300,000 270,000 30,000 Parallel T/W to Xwind 335,000 301,500 33,500 Extend Crosswind Runway 250,000 225,000 25,000 Parallel Runway 788.000 709.200 78.800 Total $8,253,000 $7,427,700 $825,300 V-12 900322 CONCLUSION Over the course of the study, the alternative development plans for the airport were presented in various public forums. Initially the concepts were displayed at scheduled meetings of the Airport Authority, which are open to the public and also attended and reported on by the local newspaper. In addition, the Airport Authority sponsored a booth at the Greeley Mall in December, 1988 to allow for informal discussion of alternative development plans. On February 1, 1989 presentations were made at a Greeley Rotary Club Luncheon and an advertised public meeting held at the Greeley Recreation Center the same evening. Mr. Fred Jaeger,Greeley-Weld County Airport Administrator, has extensively promoted the airport and proposed development plans at service club meetings throughout Greeley and Weld County. The general consensus of opinion was that Alternative"B", which provides for the construction of new and extended runways in a north-south configuration, was the preferred alternative. The Airport Authority unanimously voted in support of Alternative "B" in a special session held on February 28, 1989 and referred the matter to the County Commissioners and City Council for further action. In a joint meeting of the City and County Officials on March 23, 1989 Isbill Associates was instructed to proceed with completion of the Airport Layout Plan, Financial Evaluation and Environmental Review based on the Alternative "B". The remainder of this report focuses on phased development of the preferred alternative, land use compatibility, estimated costs for improvements and a summary of anticipated environmental impacts. V-13 VI. OBSTRUCTIONS AND LAND USE CONTROL 9C0322 VI. OBSTRUCTIONS AND LAND USE CONTROL Historically aviation noise has represented the major constraint on airport expansion and development. In addition to the noise issue is the visual affect and annoyance of low level aircraft traffic near residential areas. These constraints must be carefully studied so proper actions can be taken to reduce the problems. Both the City of Greeley and Weld County have addressed the associated problems of noise, low flying aircraft on approach and obstructions to safety occurring near the airport. The Weld County Board of Commissioners, the Greeley City Council and the Greeley-Weld County Airport Authority adopted a master plan for the airport in 1979. Both noise and obstructions to safety have been addressed by the airport master plan, the Weld County and Greeley comprehensive plans. These plans have established an Airport Overlay Zone District to control building height near the airport. This ordinance uses the Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77 imaginary surfaces to protect the airport from new incompatible land uses. The intent of the ordinance is to "restrain influences which are adverse to the proper and safe conduct of aircraft operations in the vicinity of airports, to prevent creation of conditions hazardous to aircraft operations and to encourage development which is compatible with airport use within the intent and purpose of the zoning". Steps have also been taken to restrict noise sensitive uses and residential development adjacent to the airport. The ordinance was developed to also include other critical areas that should be regulated near airports. These areas include: • Allowing only commercial and industrial development that will be compatible with airport activity near the airport, and • Restricting any and all development that will interfere with navigational signals, radio communications, light interference or anything impairing visibility to pilots in the vicinity of the airport With the proposed construction of a new runway/taxiway complex, the existing ordinance would have to be amended to expand the current Airport Overlay District. A copy of the Ordinance is included in the appendix. The existing ordinance is adequate in addressing the constraints that can limit airport activity and development. However, with the increase in larger business aircraft further expansion of Airport Overlay Zone District should be implemented. Noise and visual intrusions are VI-1 900322 typically the biggest objections voiced by people in areas near airports. The chart, Traffic Pattern Airspace, on page 35 of FAA Advisory Circular *150/5080-6A should be used to implement zoning restrictions which recognize overflight annoyance as well as noise from air traffic using Greeley-Weld County Airport. Traffic Pattern Airspace broadens the scope for noise incompatibility to include approach patterns and added buffer zones around the airport to reduce noise problems and limit obstructions that could become a hazard to aircraft. Category C aircraft are defined as having approach speeds of 121 knots or more but less than 141 knots. Critical aircraft using Greeley- Weld County Airport are those fitting Category C. The dimensions of the pattern for this category will be used to outlined overflight areas associated with the primary runway. Below is an abbreviated list showing Category C type aircraft. Category C Type Aircraft Aircraft Type Speed in Knots Learjet 24 128 Learjet 25 137 Rockwell Sabre 75A 137 Rockwell Sabre 80 128 Gulf stream II 141 Gulf stream III 136 The Critical Aircraft using the touch and go runway are those aircraft found in category A. This category of aircraft must have approach speeds of 91 knots or less. A condensed list of aircraft comprising Category A Aircraft is shown below. Category A Type Aircraft Aircraft Type Speed in Knots Cessna 150 55 Cessna 172 75 Beech Skipper 77 63 The Airport Influence Area for Greeley-Weld County Airport is shown in Exhibit IX. With the use of Traffic Pattern Airspace the Influence Area is enlarged because of the added buffer zones. The pattern dimensions described by the FAA include buffer zones at the end of each runway and throughout the air traffic pattern. Final approach and departure length is one and three- VI-2 quarters mile, with buffer zones laterally for one-half mile on the outside of the pattern. Base legs and crosswind legs of the pattern should be one and three-quarter mile in length, with buffers of one-half mile beyond the approach and departure legs of the proposed pattern. A one-half mile buffer zone extends laterally from the centerline of runway. Because of the slower approach speeds for Category A Aircraft, the dimensions for training runway pattern will be reduced accordingly. A copy of the chart, Traffic Pattern Airspace (Figure 5), is enclosed to further help in explaining the scope of the pattern. The proposed patterns are shown in Exhibit IX. LAND ACQUISITION To protect the airport from further encroachment of incompatible land uses and to accommodate the proposed improvements, the acquisition of approximately 320 acres of land is necessary. Acquisition of the land for runway expansion and contain the clear zones to the north should be accomplished in the early phase of development in the Capital Improvement Program. Expansion of the north-south runway complex which will reduce agricultural land will require approval by a special review permit. The Soil Conservation Service must also be consulted for review of the designation of prime agricultural land surrounding the airport. The proposed new I7L/35R runway would also require the closing of two Weld County roads. The closure of these roads, 62 and 64, would require approval from the Board of County Commissioners. CONCLUSION This report recommends the following actions be taken to protect the airport from incompatible land uses. • Include in the Airport Overlay District an amendment which addresses the Traffic Pattern Airspace. • Include in the review process the requirement for granting of Aviation Easements within the Airport Overlay District. • Implement compatible land use policies which address frequent overflights along with height and noise impacts which are already addressed. VI-3 910322 TRAFFIC PATTERN AIRSPACE AIRCRAFT DISTANCE IN NAUTICAL MILES CATEGORY TYPES A B C D E A .75 .75 .5 .5 .25 B 1.00 1.00 .5 .5 .25 C 1.75 1.75 .5 .5 .5 D 3.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 .5 NOTE: The above Traffic Pattern Airspace should be increased by one-half the length of "B" (Final and Departure Dimensions) when more than four aircraft of the same category are anticipated operating in the traffic pattern at any one time. C JFF�P • 0 Q a a as) d d - b I f b -1— O �� e LEGEND a. Base Leg and Crosswind. b. Final and Departure. (Measure from End of Runway) c. Downwind Buffer Area. d. Base Leg and Crosswind Buffer Area. e. Final and Departure Buffer Area. FIGURE 8 VII. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS 9C0322 significant increase in revenues in comparison to expenses and the airport has been able to reduce total expenses. Because of the short fall in local funding for capital airport improvements, other alternatives must be considered to finance that portion of the airport development which the sponsor is responsible for. One method to meet capital requirements is through the sale of general obligation or revenue bonds. General obligation bonds are issued by a governmental unit, and are backed by the full faith, credit and taxing power of the issuing governmental agency. Although the level of anticipated revenues is considered in the initial determination of the investment requirements, the bonds themselves are guaranteed and serviced out of general resources of the issuing entity, not from the airport-generated revenues. With this degree of investment security, general obligation bonds can be sold at a relatively low interest rate, requiring a lower level of expenditure on debt servicing. Since local governments are constitutionally limited in the total debt that can be secured by general obligation, the use of this type of bond reduces the available debt level. Because of the high demand on local governments for capital investment usually for facilities that produce no revenue, many government agencies consider it unwise to use general obligation bonds for income-generating projects such as airports. Banks are responsible for a large share of the underwriting of general obligation bonds. Revenue bonds are issued on the basis that the entire debt service is paid from project revenues. Although not subject to the general debt limitation, these bonds bear substantially higher interest rates than general obligation bonds, the interest rates often being dependent on the anticipated level of coverage of revenues to debt service (coverage ratio). "Coverage ratio" is the ratio of net revenues to debt service. In effect, it indicates the estimated ability of the airport and/or improvement to "cover" a debt. Minimum acceptable coverage ratios typically range between 1.25 and 1.5. From 1986 to 1988 the coverage ratio for Greeley-Weld County Airport has ranged from a low of 1.03 to a high of 1.12. Because of the financial makeup of the airport this range will probably be maintained for the foreseeable future. When ratios are lower than the typical range, bonds must be secured at higher interest rates. Before issuing revenue bonds a traffic and earnings report must be prepared that includes the forecasting of revenues and expenses during the life of the bond. Banks are prohibited from dealing in revenue bonds. Federal funding can help accomplish new construction,pavement rehabilitation and equipment acquisition. A major problem is that it is not possible to get a commitment from the FAA that VII-15 900322 _ .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. VII. FINANCIAL ANALYSIS This chapter outlines the steps required to maintain the capital investments of existing improvements and the budgetary methods needed to prepare for the proposed construction. Greeley-Weld County Airport is in need of both further construction and a cost effective method of maintaining and improving existing facilities. A phased development schedule has been provided as the basis for future requests for Federal funding. A need for prioritizing and re-evaluating projects is part of any Master Plan Update. Along with the airport's need for expansion is the need for a sound operation/maintenance program. Yearly pavement inspection programs can easily identify areas that should be reprioritized. Day to day operational expenses can not be neglected. Therefore, shortfalls must be budgeted so major reconstruction can be forestalled. FUTURE AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT Future development of the Greeley-Weld County Airport covers a 20 year period. The proposed development items include the acquisition of land, expansion and new construction of runways and taxiways, rehabilitation of apron pavement and construction of new fuel facilities. Development items are grouped into three phases, Phase I is short term (0-5 years), Phase II is intermediate (5-10 years) and Phase III is long range (10-20 years). Preliminary cost estimates are included for each item. Cost estimates are in 1989 dollars and include engineering, contingencies and construction. Phase development schedules assist the airport sponsor in budgetary planning for construction improvements which are needed to provide safe and functional facilities for aviation demands. The tables that follow assume that the FAA will continue to provide 90% funding for eligible projects. Local funding should provide the remaining 10%. Certain items, primarily navigational aids and air traffic control facilities, may be totally funded, constructed and maintained by the FAA, depending on the priority of need as determined by the FAA. Table VII-1 provides a summary which lists the phased development and projects for each phase. VII-1 9C0322 TABLE VII-1 GREELEY-WELD COUNTY AIRPORT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM PHASE I (0-5 Years) Total FAA Sponsor Description Cost Share Share Acquire Land (300 Ac.) and Relocation of Persons for North-South R/Ws $1,368,000 $1,231,200 $136,800 Site Preparation for R/W 17R/35L Extension & R/W 17L/35R Construction 1,558,000 1,402,200 155,800 Pave & Light R/W 17R/35L Including Parallel & Connecting T/W 1,886,000 1,697,400 188,600 Pave R/W 17L/35R 564,000 507,600 56,400 Rehabilitate East End of Parallel Taxiway to Runway 9/27 150,000 135,000 15,000 Modify Oil Wells 300,000 270,000 30,000 Rehabilitate Tiedown Apron 700,000 630,000 70,000 Expand Aircraft Tiedown Apron 210.000 189.000 21.000 TOTAL $6,736,000 $6,062,400 $673,600 VII-2 PHASE II (5-10 Years) Total FAA Sponsor Description Cost Share Share Relocate ILS & MALSR to R/W 35L $1,100,000 $990,000 $110,000 Strengthen R/W I7R/35L and Parallel T/W system (60,000 DWG) 2,328,000 2,095,200 232,800 Install Taxiway Lighting 160,000 144,000 16,000 Strengthen Itinerant Aircraft Parking Apron (60,000 DWG) 350,000 315,000 35,000 Construct New Fuel Facility 100,000 --- 100,000 Acquire Additional Land for Aviation Related Development 500,000 450,000 50,000 Expand Aircraft Tiedown Apron 150,000 135,000 15,000 Improve Terminal Access and Parking 250.000 90.000 160.000 TOTAL $4,938,000 $4,219,200 $718,800 VII-3 900322 PHASE III (10-20 Years) Total FAA Sponsor Description Cost Share Share Acquire Additional Land for Compatible Land Use Protection $1,500,000 $1,350,000 $150,000 Extend R/W 17R/35L & Parallel T/W to 10,000 feet 1,000,000 900,000 100,000 Widen Parallel T/W to 50 feet 500,000 450,000 50,000 Construct New Terminal 800,000 Building 800,000 --- Expand Aircraft Parking Apron 150.000 135.000 15.000 TOTAL $3,950,000 $2,835,000 $1,115,000 Over the 20 year period, the acquisition of land and capital improvements would total 14.8 million dollars, of which 13.1 million dollars would come from Federal funding. The remaining 1.7 million dollars would be furnished by the local sponsor. The 1.7 million dollars that will be provided by the sponsor will require a major budgetary process to successfully complete the funding shortage. Actual aircraft activity will determine the improvements needed and helps to indicate the general economic conditions of the airport. Revenue sources which the Airport Authority can use to generate funding are: Fuel sales, tiedown fees, hangar and land leases, fuel flowage fees, grant programs, profits from the sale of surplus assets, general airport revenue bonds and direct budgeting from the City of Greeley and Weld County. To identify the ability of Greeley-Weld County Airport to meet the cost of planned capital improvements, it is necessary to analyze the revenues and expenses of the airport. This analysis is vital in the projection of available funding from airport revenue for capital improvements and the ability to service debt that will be associated with the airport improvement program. The Annual Audited Statement of Operations from 1984 through 1988 has been used as a basis for forecasting Revenues and Expenses for the next five years. VII-4 FINANCING The prior sections on phased development summarized developmental cost estimates. The cost estimates were based on 90% funding from the FAA and 10% coming from local sources for federally eligible items. The summary of Phase I, II and III cost are as follows: Total FAA Sponsor Share Share Share Phase I $6,736,000 $6,062,400 $673,600 Phase II $4,938,000 $4,219,200 $718,800 Phase III $3,150,000 $2,835,000 $315,000 Table VII-2 examines revenue from the last five years. The average year end revenue for the last five years has been $340,905. Revenue generated by the airport is not enough to support funding requirements associated with major capital improvements. However, minor improvement projects are financed with any surplus income. TABLE VII-2 GREELEY-WELD COUNTY AIRPORT OPERATING REVENUES Revenues 1988 1987 1986 1985 12 Gross Margin • of Sales $145,628 $139,241 $114,579 $91,162 $99,096 Leases & Rentals 194,307 195,757 209,022 210,359 181,809 Charges for Services 12,457 10,743 7,946 4,677 7,708 Aircraft Registration Fees 5,398 5,908 10,738 12,311 Other Op. Revenues 77124 14.884 6532 jarn 11.424 TOTAL $364,914 $366,533 $348,817 $324,226 $300,037 VII-5 9C0322 Greeley-Weld County Airport has been successful in its ability to control its requests for supplemental funding. For the last four years the airport has been able to maintain a balance between operating revenue and expenses, with steadily increasing income. The following information details the summary of revenue for Greeley-Weld County Airport. These areas of revenue have been reviewed to determine what income can and will be generated for airport operations and maintenance. Gross Margin of Sales The one source of revenue that benefits directly from increased airport activity is the sale of aviation fuel by the airport. Because of the increased volume of business aircraft, Jet A fuel sales have increased by 121% from 1986 to 1989. The sale of other types of aviation fuel has remained constant or decreased slightly in the face of large increases in flight training. The non-business use of the airport has declined sharply. Jet fuel accounts for over 63% of all fuel sales revenue. Sales of Jet-A fuel are increasing because of the growing use of Greeley-Weld County Airport by larger business aircraft. Jet-A fuel sales are based on itinerant operations and business jets based at the airport. Traffic from based business aircraft should continue to increase because of the growth that local corporations are experiencing. Monfort's parent company ConAgra, Inc., has been very successful and is forecasted to continue this prosperity. ConAgra's net income increased by 25% in 1989. Using recorded sales from the last four years a linear regression method was used to forecast possible sales for the next five years. The 1989 forecast was developed using volumes from the first six months. This information is provided in Table VII-3. • VII-6 TABLE VII-3 JET-A FUEL SALES YEAR SALES HISTORIC 1984 $132,896 1985 $84,325 1986 $64,000 1987 $101,557 1988 $120,258 1989 $166,981 FORECASTED 1990 $168,800 1991 $170,700 1992 $172,600 1993 $174,400 1994 $176,400 Leases & Rentals Income from leasing both improved and unimproved airport property is usually the major source of airport revenue. The renting of land, hangars and tiedowns has remained fairly constant throughout the four year period. This income includes the rental of building space, hangar, and tiedowns on the terminal ramp. In 1988 these areas generated $194,307. This revenue accounted for 53%of the total revenue for 1988. Greeley-Weld County Airport is near capacity of available hangar space having over 100 hangars leased. The airport should evaluate areas that could accommodate needed hangar space (See Exhibits II and III). Areas south of the terminal building should be made available for the construction of executive hangars. Additional T-Hangars should follow the pattern of development established on the west side of the airport. With increased expenses associated with such structures, Greeley-Weld County should reevaluate lease agreements for hangar and facility space. Charges for Services & Aircraft Registration Fees Charges for Services and Aircraft Registration Fees are shown as two separate line items in the annual audit. However, due to recent legislation discussion of both line items will occur in this section. VII-7 9€0322 Charges for services include after hours service by airport personnel, Fixed Base Operators licenses, student fees, preheating of aircraft, providing the auxiliary power unit to aircraft, and fuel flowage fees. Up until 1989 Colorado legislation provided for the taxing of aircraft at each particular airport and was collected by the local governing body. This element of the Statement of Operations generated $5,398 in 1988. This is a decline of $6,918 from 1985. The 1985 revenue generated from Air Registration Fees was $12,311. Recent legislation has eliminated the specific ownership tax on aircraft and the aircraft _ registration fees. In place of these fees the Colorado General Assembly enacted House Bill No. 1250. This bill imposes a tax on fuel used to propel aircraft in lieu of the rescinded bill. At the present time $.06/gal is attached to Av-gas and $.04/gal on Jet fuel. The airport collecting the tax receives $.04/gal back on Av-gas and $.04/gal back on Jet fuel. House Bill No. 1250 should help to generate more income for airports such as Greeley-Weld County. 1989 fuel tax revenue totalled $17,492. However, it will not offset the need for supplemental funding. Other Operating Revenues Other sources of operating revenues are not anticipated to increase in any major degree. This source amounted to approximately two percent of the total revenue generated at Greeley- Weld County Airport in 1988. OPERATING EXPENSES Operational expenses occur during the every day course of business. Greeley-Weld County Airport has kept close fiscal management over operating cost. This has helped to maintain the balance between operating cost and revenue generated by the airport. Expenses have been summarized in the following sections. A breakdown of expenses is shown in Table VII-4. Following the table are sections which discuss each line item. Personnel Services Personnel services include salaries and fringe benefits to individuals employed by the airport authority. Salaries and fringe benefits are a major factor in airport expenditures. Both must be attractive enough to keep qualified and experienced individuals employed at the airport. VII-8 TABLE VII-4 GREELEY-WELD COUNTY AIRPORT OPERATING EXPENSES Expenses 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 Personnel Services $155,074 $140,722 $116,848 $105,471 $146,747 Contractual Services 14,093 15,190 12,243 25,928 35,276 Supplies 8,285 10,644 12,999 7,472 9,811 Repairs & Maintenance 29,461 27,241 23,409 17,485 23,709 Utilities 20,490 21,803 18,678 20,543 21,301 Other Op. Expenses 52.480 75.659 46.883 30.653 30.962 TOTAL $279,883 $291,259 $231,060 $207,552 $267,806 The amount paid to employees is generally less than the wages they have earned because the employer is required by law to withhold certain amounts from the employees' wages and send them directly to government agencies to pay taxes owed by the employee. In this group are FICA taxes, federal income taxes and state income taxes. Also certain withholdings are made for the employees benefit and often at their request. In this group are pension payments, medical insurance premiums, and life insurance premiums. The expenses shown in Table VII-4 include wages and salaries and those fringe benefits which Greeley-Weld County Airport include in their compensation package. Contractual Services Expenses which are included in Contractual Services are: Legal Fees, Professional Audits, Professional Services and Security at the airport. This line item has remained fairly constant, with only minor deviations from the average depending on those professional services which are required from year to year. Contractual Services in the last five years has ranged from a low of $12,243 in 1986 to $35,276 in 1984. With the proposed development in the next twenty years, contractual services will undoubtedly increase. Increases will be found mainly in legal fees and professional services required in the acquisition of land, bidding and construction of airport development projects. VII-9 900322 Supplies. Office supplies and consumable supplies are carried under this line item. The airport management and employees have reduced this item by one-third from 1986 to 1988. It should be noted that even with the extra effort in curtailing excess use the cost of supplies will probably remain near what was spent during 1988. Repairs & Maintenance This section includes those costs associated with maintenance of the airport on a day-to-day basis. Not included are expenses from major maintenance projects. These costs have increased by 4.4% over the last four years. Repair and maintenance costs can be expected to continue on a fairly steep climb because of the increased traffic volume at the airport and the age and useful life of the facilities. Utilities These expenses include natural gas, electricity, telephone, gas and oil services to the administration office and maintenance facilities. With the decline of energy prices the cost associated with utility expense has remained fairly constant. This is in part due to the increased use by airport users of the facilities. It is still encouraged to conserve energy and reduce the cost associated with these expenses. Other Operating Expenses The major expenditure for this line item is insurance for the airport. This does not include health insurance which is part of the benefit package for employees of Greeley-Weld County Airport. Greeley-Weld County Airport has been very successful in maintaining the cost of insurance. While most insurance has been on the rise, the airport's cost of insurance has remained fairly constant. Review of the airport's insurance should occur during each time of renewal. Future expenses are expected to increase moderately with growth of airport facilities. NONOPERATING REVENUES & EXPENSES This section of the financial analysis pertains to those areas of the airport economy which can not be considered as part of the operating revenues or expenses. Items which are listed under this section include: Farm Revenues/Expense, Interest Income/Expenses, Oil and Gas Leases, VII-10 Gain from the Sale of Equipment or Hangars and Miscellaneous Revenue/Expenses. The following Table VII-5 provides information on nonoperating items listed in the approved audits from the 1984 through 1988. TABLE VII-S GREELEY-WELD COUNTY AIRPORT NONOPERATING REVENUES (EXPENSES) Revenues/ Expenses 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 Farm Revenues $116,535 $82,797 $81,581 $23,769 $21,257 Farm Expenses (102,474) (92,171) (75,684) (14,917) (4,432) Interest Expense (55,924) (54,154) (71,148) (58,949) (68,853) Interest Income 9,857 5,421 2,948 5,673 2,053 Oil & Gas Lease Revenue 5,241 9,756 15,515 32,912 2,991 Gain on Sale of Hangars 1,992 Gain or (Loss) on Sale of Equipment 414 27,219 ---- (102) 2,828 Miscellaneous Revenue ---- 4,333 Deferred Gain ---- 1,992 1,992 Miscellaneous Expenses (554) TOTAL ($24,359) ($14,807) ($44,796) ($11,614) ($44,710) Farm Revenues/Expense% The dramatic increase in revenue from farming helped to make 1988 one of the best years for the Greeley-Weld County Airport. Income from farming generated nearly $15,000 in 1988. However, there are no guarantees that this trend will continue. Income generated from farming has increased because of drought conditions in other areas of the country and the decreased quantities of farm commodities at the present time. VII-11 900322 The airport authority should cooperate with the tenant in developing long range crop alternatives. Variables that affect net income from farming include: • World crop production and forecasted commodity prices • Forecasted expenses such as fertilizer, herbicides and pesticides • The cost to irrigate vs. dry land alternatives Interest Income/Expense This category includes costs from airfield and terminal area development. Interest expense from short and long term debt has declined slowly over the last five years. Interest expense should continue on the decline due mainly to the reduction in interest rates for short term loans and the retirement of older loans. In the following section Capital Outlay, operating revenues, expenses and local funding needs are discussed. Payments for existing debt service have been averaging approximately $61,805 over the last five years. Repayments occur from operating revenue. Interest earned comes from banks paying on the airport's accounts with average balances and from those individuals and businesses which have accounts at the airport. Interest income has increased dramatically over the last three years. With the influx in activity, interest revenue should increase moderately. Oil & Gas Leases Greeley-Weld County Airport has made every effort to find sources of revenue that will enhance the positive cash flow of the airport. When other airports were seeking assistance for even operating income, Greeley-Weld County Airport had found the needed revenue to support operational expenses. Two of the innovative avenues for increased revenue are use of airport property for agricultural purposes and oil and gas well royalties. Oil and gas leases were 1% of the total revenue in 1988. Royalties have been as high as 9% of the total revenue in 1985. This is indicative of the current market prices for domestic oil and gas. With the recent increase in gasoline prices, royalty income from wells located on airport property should increase. Generation of income from oil and gas leases should be addressed in two alternatives when renewing these leases. The alternatives include increasing volumes which would adjust for VII-12 the deflated market prices. Using the spot market to sell gas would help in finding customers for the increased amounts. The second alternative is the reduction in volumes which would prolong the oil and gas reserve under airport property. While income may not be as high as the other alternative, revenue would be generated for a longer period of time. Gain/Loss on Sale of Equipment or Hangars This category is provided to give the airport a means of selling equipment or facilities that no longer have a useful value to the airport. Income generated from the sale of equipment or hangars is not considered to be a main source of income to the airport. The airport did have a one time gain of $27,219 in 1987. This however, should be considered a rare occasion which indicates the ability of the airport manager and airport board to use sound business judgement in the long range planning of airport business. Deferred Gain. Miscellaneous Revenues/Expenses These three items are shown separately in the annual audit. As Table VII-7 indicates there is very little activity in Deferred Gains, Miscellaneous Revenues or Miscellaneous Expenses throughout the five years shown. CAPITAL OUTLAY The Greeley-Weld County Airport has been very successful in maintaining a marginal cash surplus after day-to-day expenses. The airport has been self-supporting in this respect. This success has allowed the airport to refrain from any supplemental funding requests. Budgetary methods differ for day-to-day operating expenses and capital outlay projects. The FAA contributes 90% of the project amount for eligible projects. Greeley and Weld County contribute the remaining share. Planning of such projects helps in the budgetary process. Along with any expansion projects, maintenance programs and equipment purchases must also be budgeted. The FAA will not guarantee funding every year. Greeley-Weld County Airport maintains a contingency fund of about $50,000. Expenditures in the 1988 fiscal year lowered this fund to $30,000. This reserve must be maintained for emergencies and should not be used to implement an inspection/maintenance program. The following table,Table VII-6,entitled"Historic Expenses vs.Revenues," 1985-1988,displays the year end totals for expenses, revenue and the difference of the two. Total revenues come from the terminal, airport and farm accounts and do not include contingency and savings VII-13 9C0322 accounts. Cash surpluses and cash savings fund smaller airport improvement projects. Total expenses include only operational costs of the terminal, airport and farm accounts and principal payments. TABLE VII-6 GREELEY-WELD COUNTY AIRPORT HISTORIC EXPENSES VS. REVENUES Year Total Expenses Total Revenues Net Income Historic 1984 $341,645 $329,166 ($12,479) 1985 ' $281,520 $386,580 $105,060 1986 $377,892 $450,853 $72,961 1987 $437,584 $498,051 $60,467 1988 $438,281 $498,953 $60,672 1989 * $450,947 $599,745 $148,798 Forecast 1990 $486,000 $638,000 $152,000 1991 $511,700 $665,400 $153,700 1992 $538,900 $694,300 $155,400 1993 $567,400 $724,500 $157,100 1994 $594,700 $755,200 $160,500 * 1985 does not include 9 months salary for the airport manager and did not recognize a $65,000 tax deficit. 1989 figures are unaudited from the Airport Manager's office. FUNDING & IMPLEMENTATION Partial funding of capital outlay programs must come from Greeley and/or Weld County funds. With the advance planning of projects at the airport, local funding can be budgeted to meet the sponsor's share of the project. Greeley-Weld County Airport must be able to budget for maintenance programs, equipment purchases and new constructions. Only a minor cash balance is anticipated at the end of each year. This amount is currently used to finance small improvement projects. Year end surplus funds should be used as matching funding for next years AIP projects. It is necessary to balance year end funds with expected aid needed for next years projects plus any items not eligible for federal aid projects or not covered as a capital outlay in the airport budget. At the present time Greeley-Weld County Airports revenues are increasing by a higher percentage than total expenditures. However, with the implementation of the proposed projects it can be anticipated that expenditures will increase by 2-3% over what the yearly percent increase has been averaging. Revenues will undoubtedly flatten out during the next five years or until construction of the Runway 17/35 complex is finished. Since 1986 Greeley-Weld County Airport has shown a VII-14 significant increase in revenues in comparison to expenses and the airport has been able to reduce total expenses. Because of the short fall in local funding for capital airport improvements, other alternatives must be considered to finance that portion of the airport development which the sponsor is responsible for. One method to meet capital requirements is through the sale of general obligation or revenue bonds. General obligation bonds are issued by a governmental unit, and are backed by the full faith, credit and taxing power of the issuing governmental agency. Although the level of anticipated revenues is considered in the initial determination of the investment requirements, the bonds themselves are guaranteed and serviced out of general resources of the issuing entity, not from the airport-generated revenues. With this degree of investment security, general obligation bonds can be sold at a relatively low interest rate, requiring a lower level of expenditure on debt servicing. Since local governments are constitutionally limited in the total debt that can be secured by general obligation, the use of this type of bond reduces the available debt level. Because of the high demand on local governments for capital investment usually for facilities that produce no revenue, many government agencies consider it unwise to use general obligation bonds for income-generating projects such as airports. Banks are responsible for a large share of the underwriting of general obligation bonds. Revenue bonds are issued on the basis that the entire debt service is paid from project revenues. Although not subject to the general debt limitation, these bonds bear substantially higher interest rates than general obligation bonds, the interest rates often being dependent on the anticipated level of coverage of revenues to debt service (coverage ratio). "Coverage ratio" is the ratio of net revenues to debt service. In effect, it indicates the estimated ability of the airport and/or improvement to "cover" a debt. Minimum acceptable coverage ratios typically range between 1.25 and 1.5. From 1986 to 1988 the coverage ratio for Greeley-Weld County Airport has ranged from a low of 1.03 to a high of 1.12. Because of the financial makeup of the airport this range will probably be maintained for the foreseeable future. When ratios are lower than the typical range, bonds must be secured at higher interest rates. Before issuing revenue bonds a traffic and earnings report must be prepared that includes the forecasting of revenues and expenses during the life of the bond. Banks are prohibited from dealing in revenue bonds. Federal funding can help accomplish new construction,pavement rehabilitation and equipment acquisition. A major problem is that it is not possible to get a commitment from the FAA that VII-15 900322 funding will be available. Phasing of projects will help to assure local funding is available when needed. To aid in lowering the expense for the local sponsor,force account resources can be substituted for funding. At many airports city and county road crews accomplish part of the construction. Road crews can remove existing pavement and perform preliminary excavation work. Approval by the FAA and review of recent legislation before force account work commences on a project is advisable. A preventive maintenance program is extremely important at any size airport. The cost of replacing pavement is far greater than the cost associated with an annual maintenance program. A maintenance program is necessary to maintain the airport as a viable asset to the community. Needed funding can come from several alternative sources. Greeley and Weld County could assist with available tax revenue. With the competition being so keen for tax dollars it is doubtful that the funding can come totally from this source. The final scenario would be funding the maintenance program and new construction entirely with funds generated by the airport. This may be conceivable at some point in the future, but for now the most acceptable method of financing any capital expenditures is for Greeley and Weld County to budget yearly for the local funding share. Airports like Greeley-Weld County Airport are seldom a money making investment on their own. The largest benefit is the intrinsic value the airport generates for a community from increased industrial and commercial growth. On any given day one needs only to visit Greeley-Weld County Airport's ramp to see the business aircraft activity. These aircraft are expensive to operate and require safe and adequate facilities to operate from. Business aircraft represent to a community the opportunity for growth and development of a strong and diversified economic base. One stipulation the FAA has when releasing funds for a particular project is that the sponsor of the airport be able to budget or fund maintenance programs to maintain the investment. Current FAA funding criteria favors airports which show they are capable of funding Capital Improvements and their ability to maintain those improvements after completion. Greeley- Weld County Airport must be able to prove that it's future budgetary process will provide for: I. Funding to maintain improvements 2. Local funding of Capital Improvements not eligible for FAA funding 3. Matching funds for FAA supported Capital Improvements VII-16 CONCLUSION The primary concern continues to be the source of matching funds for the federal improvement projects discussed in this plan. As mentioned throughout this chapter, total funding can not come completely from Greeley-Weld County Airport. An informal survey of northern front range airports was conducted to better evaluate the charges Greeley-Weld County Airport currently uses. The following table shows existing charges for airports with comparable services and located in the same area as Greeley-Weld County Airport. When comparing rates it should be noted that some airports receive supplemental funding from local sources to aid in reducing their charges. Centennial Airport's improved leases are for FBO's on the airport. The unimproved lease at Centennial is for land ready for hangar construction. Front Range Airport's unimproved and improved leases are averages for the rate structure currently used. Greeley-Weld County strives to charge competitive rates and at the present time is competitive with surrounding airports. However, an increase in any of the current airport rates could produce more negative results than it would contribute to enhancing the economy of the airport. Greeley-Weld County Airport's need for improvements and expansion can only be attained through continuing support from Greeley and Weld County. TABLE VII-7 GREELEY AREA AIRPORT CHARGES Fuel Unimproved Improved T-Hangars T-Hangars Airport Flowage Leases Leases Single Eng Lt. Twin ($/gal) ($/sq. ') ($/sq. ') ($/mo) ($/mo) Greeley- Weld Co. .06 &.11' .0675 .126 $8330-$137.50 $137.50 Front Range .05 .104 .166 Fort Collins- Loveland .05 .05 .05 $110 $110 Jefferson County .05 .129 .254 $91-$180 $232 Boulder .06 .10 .20 $125 $155 Fort Collins Downtown $135-$165 Centennial .05 .03 .20 •Greeley-Weld County Airport charges the Flight Schools $.11/gal for fuel flowage. This was agreed upon to allow the schools to operate with more favorable lease agreements. The $.06 is charged to the Aerial Applicators which are based at Greeley-Weld County. VII-17 900322 VIII. PAVEMENT 9C6322 \ap, F > VIII. PAVEMENT The purpose of this section of the study is to provide a guide for the airport management to monitor the condition of airport pavements. This plan outlines the results of the pavement inventory in tabular from and assigns a numerical value to the pavement areas termed the Pavement Condition Index (PCI). The PCI is defined by mathematically deducting for distresses observed in the visual survey of the surface conditions. FAA Advisory Circular 150/5380-6 outlines the methodology used in the inventory. Sample units (or areas)are randomly selected from the airport branches(runway,taxiways and aprons) with consistent pavement characteristics. These characteristics may involve structural sections,pavement type(asphalt vs.concrete)and date of construction or maintenance history. By quantifying the observed pavement defects and subtracting the related deduct values from a theoretical new pavement value of 100, the relative condition of the various pavement areas can be developed. Conducting a random survey on an annual basis can help identify more rapid deterioration in one area versus another. Corrective actions are needed to assure that all areas receive the necessary attention to preserve the public investment in the overall facility. Figure 9 illustrates the PCI scale from 0 to 100 and relates the numerical value to an overall condition rating of "failed" to "excellent". A summary of the survey results follow in the PCI report. Included in this summary is the average PCI for the entire branch, the pavement ranking, age of pavement and last inspection date. With this information the FAA suggested Micro-Paver computer program was used to forecast PCI rankings and graphed each area. This forecast shows how the pavement will deteriorate further without proper maintenance procedures. The apron has sections which range from very good to excellent. Runway 17/35 was considered in excellent condition. A rating of very good was given runway 9/27. However, because of the traffic on 9/27 a close inspection could not be completed. The sections used on taxiway "A" ranged from fair to very good. A ranking of poor and good were given on the hangar sections. Corrective action must be implemented to prevent the taxiway, apron and hangar sections from any further deterioration. Figure 10 shows the airfield pavement layout and estimated pavement ratings for each area. The present volume of traffic using the airport clearly dictates that needed maintenance programs and new runway construction should be implemented. Deterioration of pavement will be accelerated with the increased use of heavier business aircraft at Greeley-Weld County VIII-1 900322 Airport. Maintenance programs which include weed control and crack sealing should be initiated to reduce any further deterioration. Fog sealing and reconstruction of failed pavement should also be included in the program. Due to the limited nature of the PCI inventory conducted during this study, specific recommendations cannot be made at this time. Annual inspection and reevaluation of project priorities is proposed under any circumstances. At the present time the two runways are in very good to excellent condition. With proper maintenance the runways should remain in this condition. The runways could deteriorate fairly rapidly with the increased training and business traffic. Rehabilitation of the runways should be a lower priority item than the apron and taxiway areas. The areas of major concern are the aprons and taxiways of the terminal and hangar complex. Without immediate attention these areas will deteriorate to the point of total reconstruction. The primary concern is the taxiway and apron west of the Monfort hangar and the taxiway from Emery Aviation to the runways. The eastern section of taxiway A should also be included in the priority list. The aprons of the executive hangars, the terminal ramp and the remaining section of taxiway "A" should be a secondary concern. VIII-2 PAVEMFNT CONDITION INDEX (PCI) AND RATING ►a RATING 100 T+ /i fa -nI� EXCELLENT 4 E6 VERY GOOD 70 OOOD R PAIR 40 ap, • sK POOR VERY POOR •%%% ?rii'ir%r' rFr l• ,?rr: 10 FAILED 0 FIGURE 9 VIII-3 9(0322 INVENTORY REPORT AGENCY NUMBER: GREELEY-WELD COUNTY AIRPORT REPORT DATE: AUG/14/1989 BRANCH NUMBER/USE/ SECTION SECTION ZONE PAVEMENT SURFACE AREA NAME NUMBER CATEGORY RANK TYPE (SF) APRON / APRON / 4 A AAC 380000 APRON AREA FROM: RW 9/27 STA. 37+00 TO: RW 9/27 STA. 43+00 8 A AAC 60000 FROM: RW 9/27 STA. 43+50 TO: RW 9/27 STA. 45+50 TOTAL AREA OF SELECTED SECTIONS: 440000 HANG / OTHER / OTHER AAC 335700 HANGAR AREA FROM: RW 9/27 STA 18+00 TO: RW 9/27 STA. 23.50 6 SECONDARY AAC 5000 FROM: RW 9/27 STA. 28+00 TO: RW 9/27 STA. 31+00 7 TERTIARY AAC 197400 FROM: RW 9/27 STA. 23+00 TO: RW 9/27 STA 26+50 TOTAL AREA OF SELECTED SECTIONS: 538100 RW17 / RUNWAY / 10 SECONDARY AAC 258750 RUNWAY 17/35 FROM: RW 17/35 STA. 5+00 TO: RW 17/35 STA. 41+00 9 SECONDARY AAC 11250 FROM: RW 17/35 STA. TO: RW 17/35 STA. TOTAL AREA OF SELECTED SECTIONS: 270000 RW9 / RUNWAY / 5 PRIMARY AAC 620000 RUNWAY 9/27 FROM: RW 9/27 STA. 1+00 TO: RW 9/27 STA. 63+00 TOTAL AREA OF SELECTED SECTIONS: 620000 TWA / TAXIWAY/ 1 A AAC 48000 TAXIWAY A FROM: RW 9/27 STA. 36+00 TO: RW 9/27 STA. 37+50 2 TERTIARY AAC 154250 FROM: RW 9/27 STA. 1+00 TO: RW 9/27 STA. 29+00 9 TERTIARY AAC 176500 FROM: RW 9/27 STA. 27+00 TO: RW 9/27 STA. 63+00 TOTAL AREA OF SELECTED SECTIONS: 378750 PCI REPORT REPORT DATE: AUG/14/1989 AGENCY NUMBER: GREELEY-WELD COUNTY AIRPORT BRANCH SECTION LAST LAST PCI NUMBER/USE/ CONSTRUCT INSPECTION NAME NUM/RANK/SURF/AREA(SF) DATE DATE HANG / OTHER 7 / T / AAC / 197400 JUN/01/1979 NOV/07/1988 35 HANGAR AREA CAT: ZONE: AGE (YRS) : 9.4 TWA TAXIWAY 9 / T / AAC / 176500 JUN/01/1985 NOV/07/1988 39 TAXIWAY A CAT: ZONE: AGE (YRS) : 3.4 TWA / TAXIWAY 1 / A / AAC / 48000 JUN/01/1979 NOV/07/1988 53 TAXIWAY A CAT: ZONE: AGE (YRS) : 9.4 HANG / OTHER 3 / X / AAC / 335700 JUN/01/1979 NOV/07/1988 60 HANGAR AREA CAT: ZONE: AGE (YRS) : 9.4 HANG / OTHER 6 / S / AAC / 5000 JUN/01/1979 NOV/07/1988 70 HANGAR AREA CAT: ZONE: AGE (YRS) : 9.4 - TWA / TAXIWAY 2 / T / AAC / 154250 JUN/01/1979 NOV/07/1988 72 TAXIWAY A CAT: ZONE: AGE (YRS) : 9.4 APRON / APRON 4 / A / AAC / 380000 JUN/01/1979 NOV/07/1988 81 APRON AREA CAT: ZONE: AGE (YRS) : 9.4 RW17 / RUNWAY 10 / S / AAC / 258750 JUN/01/1987 NOV/07/1988 85 RUNWAY 17/35 CAT: ZONE: AGE (YRS) : 1.4 RW17 / RUNWAY 9 / S / AAC / 11250 JUN/01/1987 NOV/07/1988 88 RUNWAY 17/35 CAT: ZONE: AGE (YRS) : 1.4 APRON / APRON 8 / A / AAC / 60000 JUN/01/1988 NOV/07/1988 92 APRON AREA CAT: ZONE: AGE (YRS) : .4 RW9 / RUNWAY 5 / P / AAC / 620000 JUN/01/1985 JUN/01/1985 100 RUNWAY 9/27 CAT: ZONE: AGE (YRS) : . 0 960322 CONDITION HISTORY AGENCY NAME: GREELEY-WELD COUNTY AIRPORT REPORT DATE: AUG/14/1989 BRANCH NAME: TAXIWAY A BRANCH USE: TAXIWAY SECTION NUMBER: 1 PAVEMENT RANK: ARIMARY SURFACE TYPE: AAC DATE PCI CONST/OVERLAY JUN/01/1979 100 INSPECTION NOV/07/1988 53 PREDICTION OCT/01/1993 28 PCI 100-!* 80-! 60-! * 40-! ! * 20-! 0-! 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 YEAR CONDITION HISTORY AGENCY NAME: GREELEY-WELD COUNTY AIRPORT REPORT DATE: AUG/14/1989 BRANCH NAME: HANGAR AREA BRANCH USE: OTHER SECTION NUMBER: 7 PAVEMENT RANK: TERTIARY SURFACE TYPE: AAC DATE PCI CONST/OVERLAY JUN/01/1979 100 INSPECTION NOV/07/1988 35 PREDICTION OCT/01/1993 0 PCI 100-! * 80-! 60-! 40-! ! * 20-! 0-! * 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 YEAR 900322 • CONDITION HISTORY AGENCY NAME: GREELEY-WELD COUNTY AIRPORT REPORT DATE: AUG/14/1989 BRANCH NAME: HANGAR AREA BRANCH USE: OTHER SECTION NUMBER: 3 PAVEMENT RANK: OTHER SURFACE TYPE: AAC DATE PCI CONST/OVERLAY JUN/01/1979 100 INSPECTION NOV/07/1988 60 PREDICTION OCT/01/1993 39 PCI 100-!* 80-1 60-! 40-! ! * 20-! 0-! 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 YEAR CONDITION HISTORY AGENCY NAME: GREELEY-WELD COUNTY AIRPORT REPORT DATE: AUG/14/1989 BRANCH NAME: APRON AREA BRANCH USE: APRON SECTION NUMBER: 4 PAVEMENT RANK: A SURFACE TYPE: AAC DATE PCI CONST/OVERLAY JUN/01/1979 100 INSPECTION NOV/07/1988 81 PREDICTION OCT/01/1993 71 PCI 100-!* 80-! * ! * 60-! 40-! 20-! 0-! 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 YEAR 9C0322 • CONDITION HISTORY AGENCY NAME: GREELEY-WELD COUNTY AIRPORT REPORT DATE: AUG/14/1989 BRANCH NAME: HANGAR AREA BRANCH USE: OTHER SECTION NUMBER: 6 PAVEMENT RANK: SECONDARY SURFACE TYPE: AAC DATE PCI CONST/OVERLAY JUN/01/1979 100 INSPECTION NOV/07/1988 70 PREDICTION OCT/01/1993 54 PCI 100-!* 80-! i * 60-! ! * 40-! 20-! 0-! 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 YEAR • CONDITION HISTORY AGENCY NAME: GREELEY-WELD COUNTY AIRPORT REPORT DATE: AUG/14/1989 BRANCH NAME: TAXIWAY A BRANCH USE: TAXIWAY SECTION NUMBER: 2 PAVEMENT RANK: TERTIARY SURFACE TYPE: AAC DATE PCI CONST/OVERLAY JUN/01/1979 100 INSPECTION NOV/07/1988 72 PREDICTION OCT/01/1993 57 PCI 100-!* 80-! ! * 60-! • 40-! 20-! 0-! 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 YEAR 900322 CONDITION HISTORY AGENCY NAME: GREELEY-WELD COUNTY AIRPORT REPORT DATE: AUG/14/1989 BRANCH NAME: APRON AREA BRANCH USE: APRON SECTION NUMBER: 8 PAVEMENT RANK: A SURFACE TYPE: AAC DATE PCI CONST/OVERLAY JUN/01/1988 100 INSPECTION NOV/07/1988 92 PREDICTION OCT/01/1993 77 PCI 100-!* !* 80-! 60-! 40-! 20-! 0-! 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 YEAR • CONDITION HISTORY AGENCY NAME: GREELEY-WELD COUNTY AIRPORT REPORT DATE: AUG/14/1989 BRANCH NAME: RUNWAY 17/35 BRANCH USE: RUNWAY SECTION NUMBER: 9 PAVEMENT RANK: SECONDARY SURFACE TYPE: AAC DATE PCI CONST/OVERLAY JUN/01/1987 100 INSPECTION NOV/07/1988 88 PREDICTION OCT/01/1993 46 PCI 100-! * 80-! 60-! 40-! 20-! 0-! 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 YEAR 900322 CONDITION HISTORY AGENCY NAME: GREELEY-WELD COUNTY AIRPORT REPORT DATE: AUG/14/1989 BRANCH NAME: RUNWAY 17/35 BRANCH USE: RUNWAY SECTION NUMBER: 10 PAVEMENT RANK: SECONDARY SURFACE TYPE: AAC DATE PCI CONST/OVERLAY JUN/01/1987 100 INSPECTION NOV/07/1988 85 PREDICTION OCT/01/1993 32 PCI 100-!* * 80-! 60-! 40-! ! * 20-! 0-! 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 YEAR CONDITION HISTORY AGENCY NAME: GREELEY-WELD COUNTY AIRPORT REPORT DATE: AUG/14/1989 BRANCH NAME: RUNWAY 9/27 BRANCH USE: RUNWAY SECTION NUMBER: 5 PAVEMENT RANK: PRIMARY SURFACE TYPE: AAC DATE PCI CONST/OVERLAY JUN/01/1985 100 PREDICTION JUN/01/1990 85 PCI 100-!* 80-1 60-! 40-! 20-! 0-! 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 YEAR 900322 CONCLUSION Greeley-Weld County Airport is burdened with deteriorating pavement and inadequate funding with which to maintain them. A maintenance and inspection program must be implemented that is cost effective to prolong the quality and life of the pavement. By prioritizing specific areas and establishing a comprehensive maintenance program, Greeley- Weld County Airport will ensure its future as a leading provider of aviation service to the Northeast Colorado Region. VIII-16 F- K:.... o a. Z 01 1 § y p 3 W a- • D # wd . ♦♦� IA z c i 1 Cr) „ 676. ==i= ;=a •►per+'�'•►• •viii'•"• ♦♦► • ) 1 • < 0 $ i ii E.-4 Cn I • • • • 1, • ♦ ill lin ♦ j CO 4- t $ i 1 p o • \ 2 IX. ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW ` 322 IX. ENVIRONMENTAL OVERVIEW INTRODUCTION This Environmental Overview was prepared in conjunction with the Airport Master Plan Update for Greeley-Weld County Airport. The Airport Master Plan Update addresses phased development at the airport over a 20 year planning period. This Environmental Overview addresses the first phase of development. The Overview is the first step that must be taken before any improvements or constructions can be implemented at the airport. The Environmental Overview is the coordination process which starts the communication process with Federal and State agencies that may have an interest in the project. The Overview identifies the need and scope of any future Environmental Assessment. The EA is the second step of the process. The Environmental Assessment identifies the level of significance and need for the final step. This final step is the Environmental Impact Statement which addresses any significant impact that airport construction may have on the categories identified below. Agency coordination letters have been included at the end of this chapter. The following categories to be examined as listed in FAA Order 5050.4a "Airport Environmental Handbook" include the following: • Noise • Compatible Land Use • Social Impacts • Induced Socioeconomic Impacts • Air Quality • Water Quality • Department of Transportation Act section 4(f) • Historical, Architectural, Archaeological and Cultural Resources • Biotic Communities • Endangered and Threatened Species of Flora and Fauna • Wetlands • Floodplains • Coastal Zone Management Program • Coastal Barriers • Wild and Scenic Rivers • Farmlands • Energy Supply and Natural Resources • Light Emissions • Solid Waste Impact • Construction Impacts IX-1 9C0322 NOISE Noise contours for Greeley-Weld County Airport were developed using the FAA approved Integrated Noise Model (INM) Version 3.9. The measuring unit to predict the impact of aircraft noise on and around the airport is the yearly Day-Night Average Sound Level (Ldn). The noise contours were based on the forecasted fleet mix developed earlier in this report. The traffic volume assumed for this time frame was averaged on a daily basis and assigned a runway utilization factor to model the future noise environment. It is anticipated that the majority of the 65 Ldn and greater noise impacted land will be located on airport property. Enough land will be acquired with the new runway 17/35 complex to keep the greater noise impacts on airport property. There are no schools, hospitals, or other noise sensitive receptors near the airport, so no significant impacts or overflight impacts will occur to such structures. There are no locally planned or occurring land uses such as residential areas in the vicinity of the airport that would be impacted by the 65 Ldn noise contour. However, several rural homesites do exist that will experience frequent overflights from the airport. The other structures in the area are industrial in nature and would not be affected by airport generated noise. COMPATIBLE LAND USE Currently, land use around Greeley-Weld County Airport is compatible with airport activities. Except for several rural homesites, the surrounding land is used primarily for agricultural purposes. Land use on airport property is controlled by the Greeley-Weld County Airport Authority. Land adjoining the airport is controlled by Weld County which has adopted ordinances that restrict development of incompatible land uses around the airport. Revisions to land use policies relating to the reconfigured airport are included earlier in this report. Flight tracts of aircraft using the airport will overfly areas near the airport and noise impacts will be experienced in such areas. Since the 65 ldn noise level occurs on land within the current or proposed airport boundary, the majority of severe impacts will exist on airport property. IX-2 SOCIAL IMPACTS Land Acquisition and Relocations To accommodate the proposed airport improvements, protect the airfield approaches and to provide a buffer zone from future encroachment of incompatible land uses, land to the north of the existing airport property will have to be acquired. Acquisition of this land may require the relocation of two or three households. Oil and gas exploration is permitted on each 40 acre tract in the area of the new runways. Approximately three existing wells and two additional exploration sites will be effected. Economic Impacts The proposed actions are expected to provide a short term stimulation to the local economy in the form of construction related activities (employment,material and service sales). Increased aircraft activity will increase the sales of various goods and services associated with airport activity such as fuel, aircraft maintenance and hangar spaces. The primary reason for these improvements to the airport is to provide a safe and adequate airfield that meets the criteria for heavier business aircraft and training aircraft using Greeley-Weld County Airport. This increased aircraft activity does not make the airport self supporting but helps to increase the economic base of the whole community. Transportation and Ground Access The major surface transportation route in the vicinity of Greeley-Weld County Airport is State Highway 263. The long range plans for 263 include shoulder widening and paving. This will increase the current right of way needs from 80 feet to 150 feet. The existing right of way for each side will have to be increased by 35 feet. The thresholds for both north-south runways have been designed, as reflected on the Airport Layout Plan, to provide adequate safety areas and approach clearance over the highway. Spacing for the MALSR lights has been taken into account to straddle the highway right of way. With the proposed new runway 17R/35L construction, two county roads (62 and 64) will have to be abandoned. The closure of portions of these roads will require approval from the Board of County Commissioners. The expected increase in aircraft operations at Greeley-Weld County Airport is not expected to result in a significant increase in surface traffic. IX-3 900322 INDUCED SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS Both the "No Action" and the Develop the Airport alternatives are not expected to alter the population growth of the Greeley or Weld County significantly. As the airport is developed, it should bring a steady increase in business, training, itinerant and recreational aviation activities which can be seen as a benefit to the local economy in that, it enhances economic growth throughout the area's markets. The overall socioeconomic impact caused by continued development of Greeley-Weld County Airport should be beneficial in that it will provide a short term increase in construction employment, and a longer duration increase in generated tax revenues as a result of increased sales of aviation related goods and services. AIR QUALITY Federal Aviation Administration Order 5050.4a"Airport Environmental Handbook"states that no air quality analysis is needed if the airport is "a general aviation airport and has less than 180,000 operations forecast annually" (FAA Order 5050.4a, Chapter 5, page 33). None of the alternatives addressed in this plan will create a significant impact on air quality. However, since aviation forecast for 1989-2009 for Greeley-Weld County Airport is above 180,000 operations per year in the FAA Order, an air quality analysis should be prepared. WATER QUALITY The nearest rivers or bodies of water to the airport include the Cache La Poudre River and South Platte River. The Cache La Poudre is located approximately one-half mile from the airport and the South Platte River is approximately two miles from the airport. The proposed development of the airport will increase the runoff to the surrounding areas, however, engineering practices including the creation of detention/retention basins could be used to mitigate the flow of runoff so that impacts, if any, to water resources will be minimal. The proposed actions are not expected to affect the Cache La Poudre River or South Platte River. DOT ACT - SECTION 4 (f) The proposed action and the "No Action" alternative will cause no conflict with Section 4(f) of the United States Department of Transportation Act, since none of the lands proposed to be acquired fall into any of the applicable categories covered by the Act. IX-4 HISTORICAL, ARCHITECTURAL, ARCHAEOLOGICAL, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES A cultural resources survey of the area will be needed before construction can begin. The survey would address the integrity and contextual significance of any findings in respect to inclusion into the National Register of Historic Places. Should cultural remnants be found during the proposed construction activities, work will be temporarily suspended to allow for the evaluation and disposition of such resources in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended and the Archaeological and Historical Preservation Act of 1974. BIOTIC COMMUNITIES The main impact on wildlife in the area will result from the removal of vegetation during construction which will cause wildlife to move to adjacent areas; however, a major change in distribution patterns of species is unlikely. The majority of the development items for the twenty-year planning period will be accomplished on existing airport property. After construction has been completed, and revegetation of the disturbed areas has taken place, some small animals and birds can be expected to return to the airport site. No significant impact on waterfowl and fish in the vicinity of the airport is expected with the proposed development items. Any potential conflicts between birds and aircraft departing/arriving at the airport and will increase commensurate with the increase in aircraft operations in the future. ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES OF FLORA AND FAUNA Both the Colorado Division of Wildlife and United State Department of Interior were contacted concerning threatened and endangered species. No known threatened or endangered species inhabited the parcel of land for prolonged periods of time; however the airport area may receive use by the following threatened/endangered species: bald eagle, whooping crane and peregrine falcon. In addition, white pelicans may also occur at times. Loss of the irrigated farmland habitat would not have any significant negative impact on the above species, due to the quantity of comparable farmland in the general area. Historically,the black-footed ferret occurred throughout Colorado. Literature and recent field studies document a close association between prairie dogs and black-footed ferrets. The standard that is used by the Fish and Wildlife Service for determining possible project effects IX-5 960322 to black-footed ferrets is the disturbance of currently occupied prairie dog habitat. Should any of the activities associated with this project result in an impact to prairie dogs, black- footed ferret surveys may be necessary. As black-footed ferret surveys are considered valid for one year, prairie dog towns surveyed more than one year prior to construction may have to be resurveyed. WETLANDS Mr. Terry McKee with the Department of the Army has conducted an on site survey for possible wetlands that would be affected with by the proposed new runway. During the on site visit, it was found that the project will not effect any waters of the U.S. which includes wetlands. A Department of the Army Permit will not be required for this project. FLOODPLAINS Greeley-Weld County Airport is located approximately one half mile from the Cache La Poudre River. Mr. Brian Hyde from the Colorado Water Conservation Board has reviewed the proposed improvements and commented that the proposal will not have any effect or be affected by the 100-year floodplain. Weld County is currently in the Regular Phase of the National Flood Insurance Program. No change is seen in the foreseeable future. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM There are no coastal zones associated with development of Greeley-Weld County Airport. Compliance with the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1977 is not a factor in this Overview. COASTAL BARRIERS There are no coastal barriers associated with development of Greeley-Weld County Airport. Therefore,considering the alternatives, compliance with the Coastal Barrier Resources Act of 1982 is not a factor in this Overview. IX-6 WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS As mentioned earlier, the Cache La Poudre River has been designated a "Wild and Scenic River." Consultation with the National Park Service will be required before any construction can begin. FARMLANDS The U.S.Soil Conservation Service(Greeley Field Office) has returned information pertaining to the existence of any prime and unique farmland in the vicinity of the airport. The SCS stated that land north of the airport contain soils that could be considered prime if irrigated with an adequate supply of irrigation water. The area south of the current airport boundary is not considered prime farmland. Farm Land Conversion Forms must be filled out and evaluated to determine the level of significance of the proposed action. ENERGY SUPPLY AND NATURAL RESOURCES The proposed development actions will increase the power requirements for the airport, since the runway, taxiway, and apron areas will be lighted. The increased power requirements are considered to be within the capacity of the current supplier. The operation of the airport even at increased levels of activity will not have a significant impact on the nation's total fuel resources. At the present time there on three gas and oil wells located in the area of the proposed new runway complex. Further exploration could occur with the allowance of one well per 40 acre tract. Acquisition of mineral rights or modifications to active wells will be required when the proposed construction is initiated. LIGHT EMISSIONS The proposed runway extension is planned to be lighted and the Instrument Landing System relocated. Included with the ILS is Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System,(MALSR)and runway alignment indicator lights. Visual Approach Slope Indicators(VASI) will be relocated to the south. The runway edge lighting is used to delineate the usable portion of the runway during darkness or poor visibility weather conditions. The VASI is used to assist pilots in their approaches for landing. There are no homesites in the vicinity of the airport that would be IX-7 900322 significantly impacted by the approach aids or the runway/taxiway lights. If specific complaints are received from homeowners, possible mitigation measures include the installation of baffling or shielding of the lights to reduce the visual impacts. SOLID WASTE IMPACT Solid wastes generated at the airport are disposed of at a licensed sanitary land fill. The Airport Authority in concert with the City/County officials should assure that no new landfills be established near the airport site, and in no case within 1,500 meters of other either Runway. CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS Construction operations will cause specific impacts resulting solely from and limited exclusively to the construction period. Construction impacts are distinct in that they are temporary in duration and the degree of adverse impacts decreases as work is concluded. The following construction impacts can be expected from the proposed development at Greeley- Weld County Airport: • A slight increase in particulate and gaseous air pollution levels as a result of dust generated by construction activity and by vehicle emissions from equipment and worker's automobiles. • Increases in solid and sanitary wastes from the workers at the site. • Traffic volumes which would increase in the airport vicinity due to construction activity (workers arriving and departing, delivery of materials, etc.) • Slight increase in noise levels at the airport during operation of heavy equipment. • Construction caused delays or congestion in automobile and aircraft movements, particularly during construction of the new runway complex. • Temporary erosion, scarring of land surfaces and loss of vegetation in areas which are excavated or otherwise disturbed to carry out future developments. IX-8 SUMMARY The Environmental Overview only gives a summary of areas to be further investigated. These areas include: Air Quality, Biotic Communities, Endangered and Threatened Species of Flora and Fauna, Farmland Conversion and Historical, Architectural, Archaeological and Cultural Resources. The Environmental Assessment will address how significant the effects will be on these categories. IX-9 900322 { DEPAR' ENT OF PLANNING SERVICES lifS ``�'1 PHONE(303)356-4000 EXT. 4400 —411IR'T 915101h STREET GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 ■ C. COLORADO June 20, 1989 Mr. Neil E. Rood Isbill Associates, Inc. 10190 East Montview Boulevard Aurora, CO 80010-2231 Subject: Greeley-Weld County Airport, Incorporated Dear Mr. Rood: Thank you for your letter of June 12. The construction of additional runways and taxiways in the Agricultural zone district would require approval of a use by special review permit. Future runway expansion and construction would also require the amendment of the Airport Overlay District and the Greeley-Weld Airport Zoning Map as adopted in the Weld County Zoning Ordnance. This map consists of one sheet, dated July 1, 1984, and was prepared by your consulting firm. The closure of portions of Weld County Roads 62 and 64 would require the approval of the Board of County Commissioners. Please call or write if you have any additional questions. Sincerely, ner,a:at, Rod Allison Principal Planner RA:dn 900322 1 ' 4 i COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1000 10TH STREET, GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 (303) 350-9780 July 3, 1989 Isbill Associates, Inc. 10190 East Montview Blvd. Aurora, Colorado 80010-2231 Attn: Mr. Neil E. Rood Subject: Greeley-Weld County Airport Mr. Rood: I have reviewed the proposed improvements for the Greeley-Weld County Airport presented in your letter of June 12 , 1989, and am unable to determine if these improvements would have any impact on the City and whether they would be consistent with the City of Greeley Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan (please see attached Page II F-1) suggests that land use conflicts and safety hazards should be minimized by the following actions: 1. The oval noise contour area (noise levels greater than 65 LDN) should be kept free of any land uses not directly associated with the airport. 2 . Runway critical areas should be kept free of any residential uses while allowing commercial and industrial uses only by special permit. 3 . The designated airport influence area should include only those land uses that are not sensitive to the noise generated by aircraft landing or taking off. If you could provide additional information describing the anticipated noise contour area greater than 65 LDN, the runway critical area and the airport influence area I would be able to respond more specifically to your request. 900322 Mr. Neil E. Rood Page 2 July 3, 1989 Although a final determination as to how the airport proposal might fit in the City of Greeley Comprehensive Plan can only be made once this information is provided, it would seem from the plans that you submitted to us that the reorientation of the major north/south runway would most likely be very consistent with the City of Greeley's plans. If you have any questions or if there is any further information that I can provide you, please feel free to call. Sincerely, Stephen V. Hill Planning Administrator SVH/cs Enc. 900322 AIRPORT The Greeley-Weld County Airport has become an important part of the transportation system for the Greeley-Weld County area . It functions as a vital link in regional and national transportation networks . By providing a home base for corporate-based aircraft as well as serving as the location for over 100 airport-specific businesses , the airport functions as an important component of the regional economy. The airport has sought to increase its role in this economy through runway and building expansion , so there is a need to plan carefully to avoid land use conflicts in and around the airport . Map 12 shows designated airport influence area , runway critical areas , and maximum noise contours as presentF-.t in the 1980 Weld County Airport Environment Assessment for the year 2, 000. To avoid conflicts that may occur as a result of incompatible land uses locating in these areas , the 1980 Greeley-Weld County Airport Master Plan should serve as a reference to help guide the development of compatible land uses in the area. To this end , the Airport Master Plan suggests land use patterns that serve to minimize potential land use conflicts and safety hazards including keeping the oval noise contour area (noise levels > 65 LDN) free of any land uses not directly associated with the airport; maintaining runway critical areas that are free of any residential uses , allowing commercial and industrial uses in the critical runway areas only by special permit ; and insuring that the designated airport influence areas include only those land uses that arenot sensitive to the noise generated by aircraft landing or taking off. 900322 TT F-1 STATE OF COLORADO COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH oe coo 4210 East 11th Avenue �� Denver, Colorado 80220 �$,'. Phone (303) 320-8333 �s ,8TCA �*A Roy Romer Governor July 21, 1989 Thomas M. Vernon, M.D. Executive Director Mr. Neil Rood Isbill Associates, Inc. 10190 East Montview Blvd. Aurora, CO 80010-2231 Subject: Air Pollution Control Division Comments on Weld County Airport Greeley, Colorado Dear Neil: This is in response to your recent letter requesting information and comments regarding the environmental impacts of the Airport Master Plan update. The Division's comments are listed below: 1) The Greeley area is currently designated a non-attainment area for carbon monoxide. An update to the area's SIP was developed for 1987 . A copy of this plan is available upon request. Further, the Greeley area will also be required to develop a PM10 SIP. No schedule has been developed to complete this SIP revision at this time. 2) Existing air quality in the area is reported annually in the Division data report. I have enclosed pertinent portions of that report for your review. 3 ) The environmental review should document and analyze an increase in emissions for ground and air-related activity. 4) The review should identify all necessary permits related to the airport expansion. I hope these comments are useful to you in the preparation of the environmental review. If you need more information please call me at 331-8500. Sincerely, rn Ray Mohr Senior Planner RM:blh 900322 STATE OF COLORADO DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS "IOC OF P.O. Box 850 S` 4ilew Greeley, Colorado 80632-0850 (303) 353-1232 of co�� June 30, 1989 Mr. Neil E. Root Isbill Associates, Inc. 10190 East Montview Blvd. Aurora, Colorado 80010-2231 Dear Mr. Root: The Department of Highways 1990-1994 Five Year Highway Program of Projects does not contain any projects on State Highway 263. However, our 2001 Plan does call for shoulder widening and paving. Projects in this plan of course are contigent on adequate funding being available. Our right of way needs for future expansion are 75 feet each side of the centerline for a total width of 150 feet. Existing right-of-way is 80 feet, thus requiring 35 feet additional right of way on each side. If I can be of further assistance please contact me. Very truly yours, DOUGLAS RAMES DISTRICT ENG roEER,C John K. Crier cNv Planning/Environmental Manager JKC:cas cc: File: Crier via Davis 900322 • COLORADO HISTORICAL SOCIETY The Colorado History Museum 1300 Broadway Denver,Colorado 80203-2137 June 22, 1989 Neil E. Rood Isbill Associates, Inc. 10190 East Montview Blvd. Aurora, Colorado 80010 RE: Greeley-Weld County Airport Dear Mr. Rood: This office has reviewed your correspondence of June 12, 1989 concerning the expansion of the above airport. A search of the Colorado Inventory of Cultural Resources has revealed that cultural resource surveys have been conducted on portions of the existing airport. However, no surveys have been completed on the 320 acres to be acquired in sections 35 and 26. Because little is known about the area, we request that a survey be conducted to identify if eligible cultural resources will be impacted by this expansion. The results of the survey must be submitted for our review. We look forward to working with you on this project. If we can be of further assistance please contact Jim Green at 866-4674. Sincerely, 'A altLik flt) AA IA Barbara Sudler State Historic Preservation Officer BS/WJG 900322 74(1 Ale? ROY ROMER F' 0 JERIS A. DANIELSON Governor n �� ; State Engineer * * 0 E a�M.rt * L876 r . OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES 1313 Sherman Street-Room 818 Denver, Colorado 80203 (303) 866-3581 July 25, 1989 Mr. Neil E. Rood Isbill Associates, Inc. 10190 East Montview Blvd. Aurora, CO 80010-2231 Re: Greeley-Weld County Airport Sec. 2 & 11, T5N, R65W and Sec. 26 & 35, T6N, R65W Dear Mr. Rood: We have received your request for comments concerning the above referenced airport expansion. As long as the proposal does not injure vested water rights and has a legal water supply, we have no objections. It does not appear that area water resources will be impacted. For information concerning the 100-year floodplain, please contact the Colorado Water Conservation Board. Sincerely, lwuY A , rwY►a _ Hal D. Simpson, P.E. Deputy State Engineer HDS/JCM/ble:3875I cc: Alan Berryman, Division Engineer 900322 STATE OF COLORADO COLORADO WATER CONSERVATION BOARD Department of Natural Resources 721 State Centennial Building 1313 Sherman Street . 7 Denver,Colorado 80203 _ -- Phone: (303) 866-3441 Roy Romer Governor I.William McDonald August 3 , 1989 Director David W.Walker Deputy Director Mr . Neil E. Rood Isbill Associates , Inc . 10190 East Montview Blvd . Aurora, CO 80010-2231 Dear Mr . Rood: In response to your letter of June 12, 1989, regarding the proposed expansion of the Greeley-Weld County Airport, I am sending you photocopies of portions of the September 28, 1982 Flood Insurance Rate Maps for unincorporated Weld County. The current and proposed property boundaries of the airport site are shown, to the best of our ability. It appears that any flood problems affecting the airport site already affect it. The proposed expansion does not seem to have any effect (or be affected by) the nearby 100-year floodplains . We, therefore, have no comment on the project as proposed . Weld County is currently in the Regular Phrase of the National Flood Insurance Program. We foresee no change in that status . I apologize for the delay in responding to your letter and for any inconvenience caused by that delay. Sincerely, Brian R. Hyde Sr . Water Resource Specialist Flood Control and Floodplain Management Section BRH/gl Enclosures cc : Drew Scheltinga, Weld County 0571E* 900322 STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY AFFAIRS Lp1AL GGa 300 Logan Street , Q 1, 'PQ Denver,Colorado 80203-4072 (Z. Phone(303)777-8669 1, 3 1 z -- Autovon 877-1833 August 10, 1989 ;, t 4 r,p ;1/4- Not" Roy Romer Governor Maj. Gen. John L. France Mr. Neil Rood The Adjutant General LTC Edward L. Arcuri Ill Isbill Associates Deputy Adjutant General 10190 Montview Blvd. Aurora, CO 80010 Dear Neil: This correspondence is in response to your letter to Mr. Phil Schmuck dated June 12, 1989 regarding the environmental assessment for the Greeley-Weld County Airport. As you are aware, the Colorado State Aviation System Plan (SASP) was prepared in 1983 and updated in 1987. According to the plan, development at Greeley-Weld County encompassed the construction of Runway 17-35 to 4,800'x 60'and the extension of Runway 09-27 to 7,500 feet. Considering the changes in the traffic volume and aircraft fleet mix since these documents were prepared, the proposed improvements identified in the SASP are no longer entirely applicable. For this reason, I cannot say the planned development, as identified in the airport's environmental assessment, is totally consistent with the SASP. The reason being is that the SASP is no longer a valid document from which to make these types of decisions. Consequently, my comments on this project are based entirely on personal knowledge of the airport and its need for improvements to meet current and projected demand. The Division, based on the State's objective to promote aviation activity and improve safety, supports this project and encourages the Federal Aviation Administration to expedite the approval of the environmental assessment and begin funding for the development. Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the project. Please contact me if I can be of further assistance. Sincer y, `-e Dennis E. Roberts Director, Division of Aviation cc: Fred Jaeger, Manager Greeley-Weld County Airport 900322 UNITED STATES 430Z West 9th Street Road DEPARTMENT OF Soil Conservation Service Greeley, Colorado 80634 AGRICULTURE Greeley Field Office (303) 356-6506 June 26, 19:39 Isbili Associates , Inc . Attn : Nei I E. Rood 100190 East Mounty i ew Blvd . Aurora, CO i 80010-22:7:1 SUBJECT: Greeley - Weld County Airport - Prime and Unique Farmland request. - Dear Mr- . R 'J: Bruce M. Li ndah I , Area Conservationist , Sc' i I Conservation Service , _ forwarded your request to me for processing and comment . You mentioned in your request the Farmland Protection Act (FPPA) rating for Prime & Unique farmland . Without form AD-1006 (Farm Land Conversion Impact Rating ) , I can not ful f i l l that request as I do not have specific acreages for site plans etc . . Your- proposed improvement request will require the FAA to file form AD-100 ., at which time a rating wi l I be given . I can comment , however-, on the soil in the proposal area and provide you this rating as to -- F'r- irne or Unique . The following sco i I s are considered Prime if irrigated with an adequate supply of irrigation water- . As defined mapped and published in the Sc' i I Survey Weld County, Colorado , Southern F'art (See attached map - so i I descriptions and potential Prime Farmlands I i st ) -- 8: Ascalon Loam, 0-1% slope 41. : Nunn Clay Loam, 0-1% slope 47: Olney Fine Sandy, Loam 1-:3% slope --- 51 : Otero Sandy Loam, 1-3% slope 76: Vona Sandy Loam, 1-3% slope These soils are all present in the Northern area of the proposed expansion and runway extentIon. The area south of the current airport boundary is not prime farmland . There are no current unique farmlands identified in Weld County. 900322 Page I have included a copy of soils map , so i I descriptions and Potential Prime Farmlands I i st . Should you require further information please contact me . Sincerely, C.;26140346":4611 Ronald D. Miller- - District Conservationist Greeley Field Office RDM/33 c c : Bruce L i ndah l , AC, w/o attachments 900322 E$T 0F\ 4AZ �t tj�� - a° x, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 1, OW. ytl M' OMAHA DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS ROCKY MOUNTAIN AREA 2560 5. CIRCLE DR.. NORTH BLDG.. SUITE GL 10 sa i --- -- ---- COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO B0D0!-4IB8 REPLY TO ATTENTION Of June 29, 1989 Platte River Resident Office U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 9307 State Highway 121 - Littleton, Colorado 80123-6901 Mr. Neil E. Rood Isbill Associates, Inc. 10190 East Montview Boulevard Aurora, Colorado 80010-2231 Dear Mr. Hood: Reference is made to your June 12 , 1989 letter and to my - subsequent June 28 site meeting with Greeley-Weld County Airport Manager, Fred Jaeger, which concerns the proposed runway 17R/35L Extension Project for the Greeley-Weld County Airport, located in Section 26 and 35 , T-6-N, R-65-West, Weld County, Colorado. During my site visit, it was found that this project will not effect any waters of the U.S. which includes wetlands . This letter is to inform you that the proposed activity will not require a Department of the Army (DA) Permit. Although a DA Permit will not be required for the project, this does not eliminate the requirement that you obtain other applicable Federal, State and Local Permits as required. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact this office or call me at 303/979-4120 or 4121 . Sincerely, Cc 'LE") Terry McKee Environmental Resource Specialist cf : Permit Files Omaha Permits Branch 916322 TP0.`EN Or tyf United States Department of the Interior r n FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE COLORADO FIELD OFFICE 730 SIMMS STREET M°"`"'."� ROOM 292 GOLDEN,COLORADO 80401 IN REPLY REFER TO: June 30, 1989 Mr. Neil E. Rood Isbill Associates, Inc. 10190 East Montview Blvd. Aurora, Colorado, 80010 Re: Greeley-Weld County Airport, Agency Coordination Dear Mr. Rood: In response to your June 12, 1989, request for information on threatened and endangered species, migratory birds, wetlands and wildlife habitat in the area of the subject project, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is providing the following comments: Threatened and Endangered Species Black-footed ferret (Mustela niqripes) Historically, the black-footed ferret occurred throughout Colorado. Literature and recent field studies document a close association between prairie dogs and black-footed ferrets. The standard that is used by the Service for determining possible project effects to black-footed ferrets is the disturbance of currently occupied prairie dog habitat. Should any of the activities associated with this project result in an impact to prairie dogs, black-footed ferret surveys may be necessary. As black-footed ferret surveys are considered valid for one year, prairie dog towns surveyed more than one year prior to construction may have to be resurveyed. Should prairie dogs occur within the project area, please contact the Service for information on black-footed ferret/prairie dog survey guidelines. Wetlands The Service regards wetlands as an important resource, due to their high value for fish and wildlife. Therefore, we recommend that the project area be inventoried for wetlands. Wetlands should be defined according to "Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States" (Cowardin, et al . , 1977) . Adverse impacts to wetlands resulting from the project should be avoided during the design process. The Environmental Report should present wetland information and address any unavoidable impacts. 9C.6322 Migratory Birds Federal agencies are responsible for the protection of migratory birds in accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 701-718h) and the Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 66-6680) . Migratory birds are considered to be any non-resident species that migrate across state and/or national boundaries. Protection prohibits the "taking" of birds, eggs, nests, parts or products. A "take" means to harrass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill , trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. Runway construcion or harrassment and collision by aircraft could be a potential "take" of migratory birds. Your Environmental Report should address this potential and offer mitigatory measures for any significant impacts. Wildlife Habitat The Service has no information on site specific wildlife habitat. We do recommend that the Colorado Division of Wildlife in Ft. Collins be contacted for any detailed information which they might possess. Important habitat types which the Service believes should be avoided by project impacts include riparian areas and native prairie. Both types are becoming increasingly scarce in Colorado and both provide important functions for wildlife. Should you require further information or if there are questions, please contact Bill Noonan at 236-2675. Sincerely, LeRoy W. Carlson Colorado State Supervisor cc: CDOW, FT. Collins (Attn: Don Bogart) FWE, SLC 9C 0322 STATE OF COLORADO Roy Romer, Governor REFER iO: 6470 DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF WILDLIFE O113% EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER ��®YO` Perry D.Olson, Director 6060 Broadway Denver,Colorado 80216 `�0F Telephone:(303)297-1192 July 6, 1989 Mr. Neil Rood Isbill Associates, Inc. 10190 E. Nontview Blvd. Aurora, Co. 80010-2231 Re: Expansion of the Greeley - Weld County airport. • Dear Mr. Rood, As per your request, here is the preliminary environmental review of the wild- life aspects of the proposed project. I've also enclosed a copy of the Divi- sion's wildlife Latilong listing, which lists all the wildlife species that are known to inhabitat the Weld County area at various times. The following comments are based on the information you sent to Mr. Rick Sherman, and a field inspection of the project site. On Site Comments - existing airport facilities and expansion on the 320 acres. Basically there is no wildlife habitat present in the area occupied by the termi- nal, garages, and hangars. Construction and new facilities in this area will not have any adverse impact on wildlife. Nearly all of the 320 acres proposed for expansion consists of irrigated farm land. This area does not contain any creeks, wetlands, ponds or lakes. This area does contain a few farmsteads with windbreaks, the most notable being the windbreak which appears to be located in the "clear zone" at the north end of runway 17R/35L in the SEA of-section 26. This windbreak provides habitat for a number of wildlife species, and should be preserved unless it's going to be a safety hazard. The area also contains scattered oil/gas wells and some stor- age tanks; and these should be handled so as to avoid accidental spills during and after construction. Aside from the previously mentioned windbreak, there is virtually no undisturbed wildlife habitat in the 320 acre parcel. Wildlife species using the 320 acre parcel from time to time include small populations of mule deer, whitetail deer, raccoon, skunk, coyote, red fox, badger, and cottontail rabbit. In addition, various species of waterfowl, song birds, raptors, reptiles, and rodents use the parcel. Due to the quantity of irrigated farmland in the general area, however, construction on the 320 acre parcel should not have any significant negative impacts on wildlife. No known threatened or endangered species inhabitat the 320 acre parcel for prolonged periods of time; however the parcel may receive use by the following DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Hamlet J. Barry, Executive Director WILDLIFE COMMISSION, George VanDenBerg, Chairman • Robert L. Freidenberger, Vice Chairman • William R. Hegberg, Secretary Eldon W. Cooper, Member . Rebecca L. Frank Member • Dennis Luttrell, Member • Gene B. Peterson, Member . Larry M. Wright, Member 900322 Mr. Neil Rood Airport Expansion Isbill Associates, Inc. Page 2 threatened/endangered species: bald eagle, whooping crane, and peregrine falcon. In addition, white pelicans (a state-listed species of special concern) may also occur at times. The two raptors may use areas adjacent to the project site for hunting purposes, although this probably would not occur on a regular basis. The whooping crane might feed in crop fields in the vicinity during migration, but this would probably not occur very often. All four of the above species could fly across the project area while in route to other locations, but again such flights would probably be infrequent. Loss of the 320 acres of farmland habitat would not have any significant negative impact on the above species, due to the quantity of comparable farmland in the general area. The most significant potential impact, from both a wildlife standpoint and a safety standpoint, is the possibility of wildlife/air craft collisions. Birds may be struck by air craft landing or taking off, as well as by circling air craft. While this could occur at any time, the greatest safety hazard would probably exist during the winter months and during spring and fall migration periods, when large flocks of waterfowl regularly fly through the area and occasionally feed in adjacent fields. In addition, the possibility of a runway collision exists. In this regard I would recommend fencing the runways and taxiways to keep wildlife such as deer and coyotes, etc. , out of these areas. Off Site Comments The Cache La Poudre River lies approximately % mile to the south, and the South Platte River lies approximately 2 miles to the south of the project site. Both of these drainages contain an abundance of wildlife; and both drainages serve as wintering areas for waterfowl and a small number of bald and golden eagles. ?:any other species of birds inhabit the drainages on a year round basis. Due to the proximity of the airport to these rivers and the anticipated increase in air traffic that the expansion will bring, the chance of a bird/air craft collision will probably increase - even though bird use on rivers nearest the airport may decrease overall as a result of increased plane traffic. Again, the danger of hitting larger birds would probably be highest during the winter months and migration periods. General Comments I would appreciate it if you would send me a more detailed map/blueprint of the project. The map I received did not show the taxiway paralleling runway 17i;/35L, the connecting taxiway between runways 17R/35L and 17L/35R, or other project features such as the construction around the existing terminal area, etc. Also, please send the map and any additional information on the project that you may have in the future to the Division of Wildlife employees listed below. The original correspondence was sent to Mr. Rick Sherman, who isn't involved in the project. Correspondence should be sent to: 900322 Mr. Neil Rood Airport Expansion Isbill Associates, Inc. Page 3 Mr. Rick Moss Mr. Larry Rogstad Colorado Division of Wildlife Colorado Division of Wildlife 317 W. Prospect 1528 - 28th. Ave. Ct. Ft. Collins, Co. 80526 Greeley, Co. 30631 Phone 484-2836 Phone :f: 352-2143 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. The Division of Wildlife may offer additional comments when we receive the map and any addi- tional information for review. If you have any questions please contact either Larry Rogstad or myself at the phone numbers listed above. Sincerely, off , Rick Noss Senior Habitat Biologist Enclosure RAN/rm cc: W. Graul J. Goodyear C. Leonard L. Rogstad • D. Bogart 90322 APPENDIX \i• • ,w 9C G322 occupancy, DEVELOPED, erected, constructed, reconstructed, moved or structurally altered or operated in the I-2 District until a Site Plan Review has been approved by the Department of Planning Services. It shall be necessary that the applicant for a building permit in the I-2 District certify and state that the performance standards and district requirements that are applicable to the DEVELOPMENT and USE of property zoned I-2 have been or shall be complied with according to the intent of Section 23, Site Plan Review. This shall be accomplished through the Site Plan Review application process. 34.3.6 Performance Standard Compliance Required. All BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES, and land located in the I-2 Districts shall be located, designed, USED and occupied in such a manner that the design and operation standards contained in Section 34.5, Performance Standards, are met. 34.3.7 Bulk Requirements (see Performance Standards, Section 34.5) . 34.4 I-3 (Industrial) District 34.4.1 Intent. The purpose of the I-3 District is to provide a zone to accommodate industrial USES which may create adverse visual impacts for ADJACENT USES. As a result, such USES may require locations relatively isolated from other land USE types. 34.4.2 Uses Allowed by Right in the I-3 District. No BUILDING, STRUCTURE or land shall be used and no BUILDING or STRUCTURE shall hereafter be erected, structurally altered, enlarged or maintained, except for one or more of the following USES which must be conducted in compliance with the Performance Standards contained in Section 34.5. 34.4.2.1 Any USE of a research, repairing, manufacturing, fabricating, processing, assembling, or storage nature may be conducted in the 1-3 District. 34.4.2.2 SIGNS, as long as the SIGNS are located and designed in accordance with the requirements of Section 42. 34.4.2.3 Parking of vehicles and equipment. 34.4.2.4 UTILITY SERVICE FACILITIES. 34.4.2.5 PUBLIC SCHOOL extension classes. 30-37 34.4.2.6 Police and Fire Stations or Facilities. 34.4.2.7 OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION FACILITIES. 34.4.3 Accessory Uses in the 1-3 District. The following BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES, and USES may be allowed in the 1-3 District so long as they are clearly incidental and ACCESSORY to the Use Allowed by Right. Such BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES and USES must be designed, constructed and operated in conformance with the Performance Standards set forth in Section 34.5. 34.4.3.1 OFFICES for USE by operators of the Use Allowed by Right. 34.4.3.2 Loading areas or STRUCTURES. 34.4.3.3 Parking areas or STRUCTURES. 34.4.3.4 One (1) SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNIT or one (1) MOBILE HOME when USED as living quarters for caretakers or security personnel responsible for maintaining or guarding the property, subject to the provisions of Section 43.3. 34.4.3.5 RECREATIONAL FACILITIES for the USE of persons employed in the conduct or maintenance of the USES allowed on the property. 34.4.3.6 Retail sales, when ACCESSORY to USES of manu- facturing, fabricating or assembling. 34.4.4 Uses by Special Review in the I-3 District. The following BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES and USES may be constructed, occupied or maintained in the I-3 District upon the approval of a permit in accordance with the requirements and procedures set forth in Section 24, Uses by Special Review. 34.4.4.1 AIRSTRIPS when they are ACCESSORY to the Use Allowed by Right; 34.4.4.2 Microwave, radio, television or other communi- cation towers over forty-five (45) feet in height (measured from ground level) . 34.4.4.3 MAJOR FACILITIES OF PUBLIC UTILITIES. 34.4.4.4 COMMERCIAL JUNK YARD or salvage yard 34.4.5 Site Plan Review Required. No land, BUILDING or STRUCTURE shall be USED, changed in USE or type of occupancy, DEVELOPED, erected, constructed, 30-38 900322 50 Overlay Districts 51 A—P (Airport) Overlay District 51 . 1 DEFINITIONS: As used in this Section, unless the context otherwise requires: 51.1.1 AIRPORT: Greeley-Weld County Airport, located in Sections 2 and 3, T5N, R65W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. 51. 1.2 AIRPORT ELEVATION: The established elevation of the highest point on the usable landing area (4,658 feet above sea level) . 51.1.3 AIRPORT REFERENCE POINT: The point established as the geographic center of the airport landing area. The reference point at Greeley-Weld County Airport is a point 3, 100 feet west of the east line of Section 2, T5N, R65W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado, and 2,250 feet south of the north line of said Section 2. 51.1.4 •APPROACH SURFACE: A surface longitudinally centered on the extended runway centerline, extending outward and upward from the end of the primary surface and at the same slope as the approach zone height limitation slope set forth in this Section. In plan, the perimeter of the approach surface coincides with the perimeter of the approach zone. 51.1.5 APPROACH, TRANSITIONAL, HORIZONTAL AND CONICAL ZONES: These zones are set forth in Section 51 .2. 51 .1 .6 CONICAL SURFACE: A surface extending outward and upward from the periphery of the horizontal surface at a slope of 20 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet. 51.1.7 HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION: An obstruction determined to have a substantial adverse effect on the safe and efficient utilization of the navigable airspace. 51 .1.8 HEIGHT: For the purpose of determining the height limits in all zones set forth in this Section and shown on the zoning map, the datum shall be mean sea level elevation unless otherwise specified. 50-1 9(.)322 51. 1.18 TRANSITIONAL SURFACES: These surfaces extend outward at 90 degree angles to the runway centerline and the runway centerline extended at a slope of seven feet horizontally for each foot vertically from the sides of the primary and approach surfaces to where they intersect the horizontal and conical surfaces. Transitional surfaces for those portions of the precision approach surfaces, which project through and beyond the limits of the conical surface, extend a distance of 5,000 feet measured horizontally from the edge of the approach surface and at 90 degree angles to the extended runway centerline. 51.1. 19 TREE: Any object of natural growth. 51.1 .20 UTILITY RUNWAY: A runway that is constructed for and intended to be used by propeller driven aircraft of 12,500 pounds maximum gross weight and less. 51. 1.21 VISUAL RUNWAY: A runway intended solely for the operation of aircraft using visual approach procedures. 51.2 AIRPORT ZONES: In order to carry out the provisions of this Ordinance, there are hereby created and established certain zones which include all of the land lying beneath the approach surfaces, transitional surfaces, horizontal surfaces, and conical surfaces as they apply to Greeley-Weld County Airport. Such zones are shown on Greeley-Weld County Airport Zoning Map consisting of one sheet, prepared by Isbill Associates, Inc. , Airport Consultants, dated July 1, 1984, which is attached to this Ordinance and made a part hereof. An area located in more than one of the following zones is considered to be only in the zone with the more restrictive height limitation. The various zones are hereby established and defined as follows: 51.2.1 UTILITY RUNWAY VISUAL APPROACH ZONE: The inner edge of this approach zone coincides with the width of the primary surface and is 250 feet wide. The approach zone expands outward uniformly to a width of 1,250 feet at a horizontal distance of 5,000 feet from the primary surface. Its centerline is the continuation of the centerline of the runway. 51.2.2 RUNWAY LARGER THAN UTILITY VISUAL APPROACH ZONE: The inner edge of this approach zone coincides with the width of the primary surface and is 1,000 feet wide. The approach zone expands outward uniformly to a width of 1,500 feet at a horizontal distance of 5,000 feet from the primary surface. „_, 9C0322 distance of 10,000 feet along the extended runway centerline; thence slopes upward 40 feet horizontally for each. foot vertically to an additional horizontal distance of 40,000 feet along the extended runway centerline. 51.3.4 TRANSITIONAL ZONES: Slopes seven feet outward for each foot upward beginning at the sides of and at the same elevation as the primary surface and the approach surface, and extending to a height of 150 feet above the airport elevation which is 4,658 feet above mean sea level. In addition to the foregoing, there are established height limits sloping seven feet outward for each foot upward beginning at the sides of and the same elevation as the approach surface, and extending to where they intersect the conical surface. Where the precision instrument runway approach zone projects beyond the conical zone, there are established height limits sloping seven feet outward for each foot upward beginning at the sides of and the same elevation as the approach surface, and extending a horizontal distance of 5,000 feet measured at 90 degree angles to the extended runway centerline. 51 .3.5 HORIZONTAL ZONE: Established at 150 feet above the airport elevation or at a height of 4,808 feet above mean sea level. 51.3.6 CONICAL ZONE: Slopes 20 feet outward for each foot upward beginning at the periphery of the horizontal zone and at 150 feet above the airport elevation and extending to a height of 350 feet above the airport elevation. 51 .4 USE RESTRICTION: Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Section, no use may be made of land or water within any zone established by this Section in such a manner as to create electrical interference with navigational signals or radio communication between the airport and aircraft, make it difficult for pilots to distinguish between airport lights and others, result in glare in the eyes of pilots using the airport, impair visibility in the vicinity of the airport, create bird strike hazards, or otherwise in any way endanger or interfere with the landing, takeoff, or maneuvering of aircraft intending to use the airport. 51.5 NONCONFORMING USES: 51.5.1 REGULATIONS NOT RETROACTIVE: The regulations prescribed in this Section shall not be construed to require the removal, lowering, or other change or alteration of any structure or tree not conforming to the regulations as the effective 50-5 900322 N N _ c; y7 jr -- .. E e ■0 i • 3 _ / �� g zo- �� upli Ij, i R # i ` L . . .% 0\ :' --A iii...!; 3 I - i 3 i S : - �5; - ___-->-:--,_., rog s -- , i 1 t 44 i s f S i 6 j v o _ i ..iii — T —1I_ — dam► J �/ j � II �1 a � II , I i 1 �� .I aII U P2' . / 41 a -___ , r) , VIII ' ` � ', a e • §I I I. _� I 1 I it I i . `�d i1 `I=1 I j li l _ w m--- -- -- - - - - .,. tir=e . I ' n H i 11 ilj _�L JI, ii ll I .,. �� 7,r ' i ; i _3 ,,,,ill—fi Lll EI ii; ‘,: fi,! ! ! !!=} h€I II°' of �� 12 I fr 71luillli ed ee =o3 y.s.az i, '� II FI : yg•i1 -I K III, e.a4 gi. I oe ! lath II hizl I II • /I ?'Pvi gs 33I I I V I, $i i-_L F 5x a} 'bqI i i. r n as §•s ss s v i i e:: I i a, , haaa � a.t dig /v �1 .. &aaaaa€ I" IIi - ! a / ti86B666IP iiiiiIe ,; I §I6IIIIIII!1,11,!10, II II xi • ie.e - 4 � ygge Y. il s'P 'ac i �� 2c jsx� a —sW • !: ° F , -_{, !!i::: G R'as s x Irg 2 —- - r 4si ii i,₹$1a; g21gaEu, _ ewa : �>F. y ;/; F I I k ., 3I / � ir g ' I \ iiiiiii I I I 1 • tg • 11 y ak B a EP§ A -- 17 'igq 6 * 1 LL—_11 I i ' IiiiiiEl l ''iIll iij 119311,0 Lzi! uu1t e4 .'," • • < - - = i z i - // l 4 • �� ice,-6) i l z 8 • L ore i :yam ___-_-----A___ �� • el... ....7\ /- ® �` ‘. o i \ -- i 1 I c4'q - - W I I I �k I \ I A ,lig a I b �� J ,-1. 'm2 r 1' :.... H I r�`'� � 25 .; V-s = 1._-1) i �'J III �0. r , I . �W H o< q I w i I i • I I! ' I! , i 40018 ' " g o 0 o � - X F z g z 9 ;z12 _ : — \ iH y , -T • j: iI: j i , yA i1 ll :',.'4 \ — N\21\ _.„' ----- 1 \ ' �_ — I�/r, \ KI a 1 ' - - a, , ii : ; v,•••L —.— -_._ F: tte .-} LJL_JLJLJLJL_l _ _ -,o 4; 1/ . ...i.. t o 1 \ Ia T Pq �- 1 - \ -., o j 1 4 4 q i t.12 c__N-,-,-_-,-- -_-_------r-v-\-----_-_-:7001 ''''' \\ ' ('-(\ ---1':''':-- ''''(,----- ---- 1 „.._---------- 40: L;. \ \\w a 1 U '� x y mx - 1 '- - - i ra zr ,. ,n i 7J ' . I , i a ... _ 1 -ll. T 1 -. I I • __-- _- 0 ti I 7 II - I I�IiII 11 I8I TM,l Il 1,3, C '' - ° ''(• IIIIIIIII,II Cao , 1111 o W _ - U III aR _. 4 .. . o h w .pp't 0 I �IiJ I r i ^• � III / • r �.�1�, . x .., � o 1 . o k s" al 1I�z„ 4 • I�F�' 1(' J tie= a¢E — i !• ' " : :;«@ ,►• M 3 LL �. -i aM . ____"`' —, _ . :-1 :- ---.--!- ---- j _ I = 0_. s!u _ — i I! r W c :f1-..--"--p„ . I __ F • . I . klI I ,..- j r I T _ " .� U a Q Q O � ,� 2 F Q Z.-1.• O J r < _ N W W '.7,1=• Ga a 3 w .n a i5 1W ma J L W G7 a T', o J � 1 h — W _ `i\\1\ W h fAD'- j� HORS XwaNt483A r , • _- "--''- i }I 9 i, s Mr . /IS ,t� �J. � t. , �� rt k + ,'�.� �� l 3� M �lZpn I 1 s � 1� ��711:r�li��i9� +- .% _ c. rte° __" - sue' • t s t. ,r. - • iii I � ,.-- � L _ " ' _ f Jai'. '' 1 >., f 14, t , :II. - _ III\ . 7_5y • ' 1 il Af s • III I Ii `` t j _ -„v _ '4 - / ' II III F , f II 4I I L 'YI l� II�IIIIIIIII s } , �- s III1[ i' I Illlthll ' I , ,._ II .I°Ili � " N nN 0 F ' r S • �_."� _.�� .. ,rte, , ,� r i C 6 _ a i ,_•6 I ` <'Z Ar J W ;_< J = 1111 1 GzJ = < _ W W nn Iniiill N Intl .. od 11 'll o = _ :.I.� VIII d3 3�oa 1 l �+ o o Q o R 1. n nl 11 < I Iln II , �` 1111111111111: IlIi1IuhuiI+ } 1 !, 1 X11 y _ IN I 11111: ,4,.. A 11111 111111 p P. Iln 111 liii 111111 W Z 1J G J � •m m m m e n e m a d Tif t 1 • U� I + _ — L 3 ' : ..- a i \� oea4 �3I�ttw �o�-� \ .i 0 Q 0 _ -- / Y � x27 a / o Y o ' o o '::� I o , : F-7 1 Z n : 1 ≤ ; = • Ut ` _ _ - r 1 PI,/ .—\---\— f '"-- 3 O s s '\ o "'� J j 1; t } I . R rc aatl _— 1t1 „ ot1—..s- I L F ,2 e e I r e r Z 2J J a ¢ a 1-----'i' I iiii : i g iI. 1 i , i • 4 w s1 �w��fi� 2 / r illipq . �. . �/ a // 4J I 2 0 a i • a- _ Cli -• Y _ f U v U p c-2 - • - 3 2- Q W I W = - Y 2 1- o. J W(J m § W _ W Cr 0 '� o3'oeo I i a ,1r.',i � �6� I N � " .� s � f\ E ,f ; \ w e ', e e W 2 J J O a ¢ a .hr ,.w,��t / I/ I J - J /I . • e : : • ....,/ Tpc ,-,-..: ,y life --_ _ N a • Y TM I h �1 07 ; 17O1 a—" LO LL!W SS W _ • _ m : .rC 2 • , _ --- -Ar —'� v_, " c_ w ' a __ - f' - s; ' ,. it .. - �'�� T o O I �% M1 9 a ., a ,5g =w4 o W_W:, ' �• .00..a T . I '' f r< o r .w L /• 1 . \., \._ :114 c —\,,,,, '... "i VI'i''' -.7 tv''' . I ____ ,..„ ._. ,.. it.,i.7. 4,ah.,. g Itt,,.f, , 1 .' i_ ,_. ' ... ., .... ,,_... _ , , 0, , / . o -.._ ,..__ a ry" r 4.mi libia II-, ®�a..� "�..� � `,ii i.mar. .,,Fes— �� p# , b" 4'f - _ - �1/4 je ,III, } �i'' _ g e 4 wt ill p w. f. .4416i,-4 . ,,_ I ., ...i.. , 2 !M:41- '- r'5.iII: ittiv, ,, II . —04,46 F► i e . IC 4 ,. I. , ; Ili v " k,, o o rio[\t sar pi raim roe _ .arikT .‘,' to1a .r!.EN{` t j C7 _ /�aa� 1�_�laar�7�)sia •�4 le �l�r a, r. �, e �1/rl.rlJ\riAr VII:Cir iLi:�4 7l�C.S_II 'jam 7? � 1■■Vim airilll/r !sk�alf� ''' v ■rnr��r,J�ir,�n� .t �' I7ElF ..riol ,.�r�y�.�i � � e' • r 1�. .0 .ice'e •r� a 0 a a a ', _ ' 0 0 0 0 '-`1 a . a „� s a se g C J � a a a ¢ i : 3 w� ## 3 ✓`i r •d\i�s� a✓'y� •� • moo I ill I R ilii'M ... ,' 1:l..1 4a a a u a`w o_i_ .=`` ��r x31 ��"., ._ W .w , ..,,,.. . ..„....., ,,,-,-a -,,,,\-• e 01:,,,_\J Q Hello