HomeMy WebLinkAbout941386.tiff - !''TLD COL 'TV
P}, �: 2 Greeley-Weld County Airport
Authority
CLERK
TO 711E
Greeley, Colorado
Draft Environmental
- El-Itt Assessment for the
Greeley/Weld
County Airport Project
ENSR Consulting and Engineering
November 1994
Document Number 3797-006-300
94 1 3 85
I+
3797-006-300
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE
GREELEY/WELD COUNTY AIRPORT
Prepared for
GREELEY-WELD COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY
Greeley, Colorado
Prepared by
ENSR CONSULTING AND ENGINEERING
Fort Collins, Colorado
November 1994
EICIt
CONTENTS
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED 1-1
1.1 Introduction 1-1
1.2 Development History of Greeley-Weld County Airport 1-3
1.3 Airport Location and Layout 1-5
1.4 The Need for an Environmental Assessment 1-7
1.5 Air Traffic Activity Forecasts and Capacity Considerations 1-9
1.6 Facility Requirements 1-12
_ 1.6.1 Existing Facilities 1-12
1.6.2 Demand/Capacity Review 1-12
1.6.3 Runway Lengths 1-13
1.7 Requested Federal Action 1-13
2.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION 2-1
2.1 Introduction 2-1
2.2 Alternatives Considered 2-1
2.2.1 Take No Action 2-1
2.2.2 Alternative "EW": East-West Primary Runway 2-2
2.2.3 Alternative "NS": North-South Primary Runway 24
2.2.4 Alternative "NW": Northwest-Southeast Primary Runway (The
Preferred Alternative) 2-7
2.3 Applicable Government Regulations 2-10
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3.1
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4-1
4.1 Introduction 4-1
4.2 Noise 4-2
4.2.1 General Discussion 4-2
4.2.2 Project Impact 4-4
4.3 Compatible Land Use 4-10
4.4 Social Impacts 4-12
4.4.1 Land Acquisition and Residential Relocations 4-12
4.4.2 Economic Impacts 4-12
4.4.3 Transportation and Ground Access 4-15
4.5 Induced Socioeconomic Impacts 4-19
3797-006-300 li November 1994
MR
CONTENTS
(Cont'd)
4.5.1 Economic Impacts 4-19
4.5.2 Population 4-19
4.5.3 Employment 4-20
4.6 Air Quality and Climatology 4-20
4.6.1 Air Quality 4-21
4.6.2 Climatology 4-24
4.7 Water Quality 4-24
4.8 Department of Transportation (DOT) Act, Section 4(f) 4-26
4.9 Historical, Architectural, Archeological, and Cultural Resources 4-26
4.10 Biotic Communities 4-27
4.10.1 Vegetation 4-27
4.10.2 Wildlife 4-28
4.11 Endangered and Threatened Species 4-29
4.12 Wetlands 4-39
4.13 Floodplains 4-40
4.14 Coastal Zone Management Program 4-41
4.15 Coastal Barriers 4-41
4.16 Wild and Scenic Rivers 4-41
4.17 Prime and Unique Farmland 4-41
4.18 Energy Supply and Natural Resources 4-43
4.19 Light Emissions 4-45
4.20 Solid Waste Impact 4-46
4.21 Construction Impacts 4-46
4.22 Environmental Impact and Mitigation Summary 4-47
5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 5-1
6.0 REFERENCES/ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 6-1
APPENDIX A - AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN A-1
APPENDIX B -AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN B-1
APPENDIX C -AGENCY COORDINATION LETTERS C-1
3797-006-300 iii NOWM11el 1994
B"
CONTENTS
(Cont'd)
APPENDIX D - MEASURES OF SOUND (Provided by the Federal
Aviation Administration) D-1
APPENDIX E -AIR EMISSIONS INVENTORY AND MODELING ANALYSIS E-1
APPENDIX F - U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; FARMLAND
CONVERSION IMPACT RATING; FORM AD-1006 F-1
3797 008-300 iv November 1994
LIST OF TABLES
_ 1-1 Federal Aviation Administration Forecasts - Greeley-Weld County Airport 1-10
1-2 Colorado Aviation System Plan Forecasts - Greeley-Weld County Airport 1-11
1-3 FM Recommended Runway Lengths - Greeley-Weld County Airport 1-14
4-1 Daily Operations by Aircraft Type 4-9
4-2 Schedule of Meetings with Landowners for the Greeley-Weld County Airport
Project 4-14
4-3 Greeley-Weld County Airport Annual Air Emissions Estimates 4-22
4-4 Greeley-Weld County Airport Air Modeling Results 4-23
4-5 Special Status Species That Potentially Occur in the Project Area for the
Greeley-Weld County Airport Project 4-30
4-6 Greeley-Weld County Airport Project - Oil and Gas Wells 4-44
4-7 Comparative Summary of Environmental Impacts for the Greeley-Weld County
Airport Project 4-53
LIST OF FIGURES
1-1 Greeley-Weld County Airport Location and Vicinity Map 1-2
1-2 Greeley-Weld County Airport Development Plan 1-8
2-1 Alternative 'EW": East-West Primary Runway 2-3
2-2 Alternative "NS': North-South Primary Runway 2-5
2-3 Alternative "NW': Northwest-Southeast Primary Runway (The Preferred
Alternative) 2.8
4-1 1994 Noise Contours 4-5
4-2 2005 Noise Contours 4-6
4-3 2015 Noise Contours 4-7
4-4 Land Acquisition Program 4-13
4-5 Ground Transportation Network in the Vicinity of the Greeley-Weld County
Airport 4-17
3797-006300 V November 1994
Bet
1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED
1.1 Introduction
This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared by the Greeley-Weld County Airport
Authority for designated proposed actions in connection with the expansion of Greeley-Weld
County Airport (Airport) as set forth below. It has been prepared pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and implementing regulations of the Council on Environmental
Quality and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
Greeley-Weld County Airport is located two and one-half miles east of the City of Greeley, in
Weld County, Colorado. 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. The Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport is an air carrier served airport, while the
other airports are general aviation use airports, and along with Greeley-Weld County Airport are
Denver Center controlled. These airports, along with the airport at Cheyenne, Wyoming, are
shown on Figure 1-1.
Greeley-Weld County Airport is located in the approximate center of Weld County, in
northeastern Colorado. A review of the history and future projections of the population growth
in Weld County reveals a steady increase in the total population every decade from 1900 to
2010, except 1930 to 1940. The population density per square mile has increased from 4 people
in 1900 to 31 people in 1980 and is projected to increase to over 57 people by 2010. The
significance of the county's population growth is its magnitude and distribution. The present
growth rate of approximately 25 percent per decade is more than triple the national average of
8 percent. Approximately 85 percent of the population is located in an 800 square mile area in
the southwestern part of the county, which includes the City of Greeley and the Airport. The
population density for this area is approximately 149 people per square mile.
The Airport facilities are located on State Highway 263, approximately 2.5 miles east of U.S.
Highway 85, almost 50 miles north of Denver and about 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.
Greeley-Weld County Airport provides the City and County with convenient access to general
aviation facilities, particularly business aviation. Convenient east-west (i.e., Highway 34) and
north-south (i.e., Highway 85) roadways and access to the Interstate freeway system provide
3797.006-3oo 1-1 November 1994
`.
LARAMIE
ALBANY
c `r
a
WYOMING CHEYENNE
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ , ■ ■ -
COLORADO
I
\\\ W �-- B
LARIMER n
.
.
.
`` DOWNTOWN WELD
JACKSON FORT COLLINS
`
t_
/^ 1
I I GREELEY
LOVELAND J
�', •` -
I I
I EASTON VALLEY
GRAND i
t VIEW AIRPORT
; BOULDER
I
I r8♦
L
/
i BRIGHTON
r - ADAMS
I GILPIN
,\ /- ,� \ JEFFERSON
I \ DENVER
A I . __ ,
� �/��
�V CLEAR I %%,
I CREEK I //, ` ARAPAHOE
` SUMMIT IF -4 - -
I Y[j I
\ �� I I I
FIGURE 1 -1
WI-MAP
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 gives Greeley the ability to attract new development.
According to the Greeley/Weld Economic Development Action Partnership (EDAP), Inc.,996 new
primary sector jobs were added to the Weld County/Greeley economic base during the first
6 months of 1994. This growth included a combination of existing facilities expanding (e.g.,
Electronic Fab Technology Corporation -300 new jobs), and new companies locating in the area
(e.g., Sykes Enterprises, Incorporated - 420 new jobs).
In addition, beginning in the summer of 1994, the South Greeley/Evans area will be home to six
new retail businesses. These businesses include two motels to provide lodging to visitors and
travelers, one new restaurant, and three retail stores. Investment spending on the
establishments exceeds$16 million. Once in operation, the businesses will directly create more
than 641 new jobs in the area (Schulte 1994).
1.2 Development History of Greeley-Weld County Airport
Weld County has achieved an impressive diversification in its economic makeup. The attitude
of local governments in Weld County is extremely positive toward economic growth. Weld
County has a diversified economy including oil and gas exploration, agriculture, and
manufacturing - including high tech. High tech companies include Eastman Kodak,
Hewlett-Packard, and Coors Bio Tech. This type of diversification can grow only with continued
access by firms and parent companies to their assets. At the present time business jets are
limited due to the restrictive length of the present runway. The increased frequency of overflights
by business jets results in greater noise impacts to the City of Greeley. With the construction
of Runway 16/34 these types of weight and operational limitations will be negated. The
reconfiguration of the Airport by making Runway 16/34 the primary runway will also reduce the
noise and overflight impacts to the City of Greeley.
Flight schools have been a corner stone during much of Greeley-Weld County Airport's modern
existence. There are currently three flight training facilities operating at the Airport. The largest
among these flight schools, AIMS Community College Flight Training Center, offers students the
opportunity to achieve high levels in education -- both in academics as well as flight training.
Students participate in a two-year accredited program which provides them the opportunity to
receive an Associates Degree in Applied Sciences, as well as completing a high quality flight
training curriculum for those wishing to pursue a career in aviation. This has resulted in
phenomenal growth in flight training activity at the Airport.
3797-006-300 1-3 November 1981
Belt
Greeley-Weld County Airport functions as an important component of the regional economy. 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. The Airport
provides a base for local corporate aircraft as well as serving as the location for approximately
eleven Airport-related businesses and the base for the flight training schools already mentioned.
The Eastern Plains Aviation System Plan, developed in support of the Colorado State Aviation
System Plan, was initiated by the State of Colorado to determine the existing and future aviation
needs in the Eastern Plains region and to provide the state and the region with information and
direction in future planning and continued development of airport facilities. The Eastern Plains
region is comprised of 23 counties and 30 airports, including Greeley-Weld County Airport. The
region extends west from the Kansas state line to the eastern slopes of the Rocky Mountains,
and from the Wyoming-Nebraska border in the north, to the New Mexico-Oklahoma border on
the south.
The primary objective of the Airport System Plan Program is to determine the long-range
requirements for airport development in this and the other regions of the state, to identify and
assess demand conditions, to determine existing facility supply, and to produce an objective
prioritization of development/improvement plans for each airport that will yield a safe, efficient,
economical, and environmentally acceptable statewide system of airports.
According to the Eastern Plains Aviation System Plan, Greeley-Weld County Airport is the most
active airport in the region in terms of based aircraft and operations. The Airport is forecasted
to reach 93 percent of its airfield capacity by 1995, and by 2015 demand will exceed runway
capacity by 17.5 percent. Based on forecast of demand, the Plan recommends that a new
10,000 by 100-foot Runway 16/34 be constructed to alleviate the Airport's capacity deficit and
to accommodate business jet aircraft.
The construction of the runway complex also will be consistent with the goals of the Colorado
Airport System and the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). Based on total
operations counted by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), Division of
Aeronautics, 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 fixed-based
operator (FBO), business, student and visitor needs; Airport improvements must continue.
Consideration must also be given to the changing fleet mix occurring at Greeley-Weld County
Airport. The increased use of the Airport by faster business jets and the increased training
activity present potential conflicts within the traffic pattern. This conflict is considered a safety
3797-006300 1-4 November 1994
DER
hazard with operations at or near peak conditions a majority of the time. The addition of a new
runway will further reduce the chances of conflicts among aircraft using the Airport.
1.3 Airport Location and Layout
The Airport site comprises 777 acres of land situated in all or a portion of Sections 1, 2 and 3,
Township 5 North, Range 65 West of the 6th Principal Meridian. The field elevation is 4,657 feet
above mean sea level. 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°F 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 are an average of 341 days of sunshine each year.
Greeley-Weld County Airport is the third busiest general aviation airport in the State of Colorado
and has been in operation since 1943. It was originally called the Weld County Municipal Airport.
The Airport has a primary runway (9/27) oriented east-west 6,200 feet long by 100 feet in width,
which is equipped with Medium Intensity Approach Lights with Runway Alignment Indicator
Lights (MALSR) to Runway end 9, and a crosswind runway (17/35) oriented north-south
3,600 feet long by 75 feet wide. There is also a turf/gravel runway (3/21) oriented
northeast-southwest 1,662 feet long by 130 feet wide. Runway 3/21 is available for Visual Flight
Rules (VFR) daytime use only. There is a 400-foot overrun at the approach end of Runway 27.
As housing and businesses move eastward towards the Airport, the expansion alternatives for
Greeley-Weld County Airport have become more limited. In addition to the urbanization
pressures, the mining of oil and gas reserves near the Airport places additional restraints on
Airport expansion plans.
Airport administration is carried out by a full time manager employed by the Greeley-Weld County
Airport Authority which operates the Airport for the City of Greeley and Weld County. The
flightline service personnel operate the Unicorn during the time the terminal is open. The
terminal is responsible for maintaining weather observations for aircraft landing or taking off from
the Airport and for providing advisory traffic information. The Airport terminal is owned and
operated by the Airport Authority. The Airport remains open when the terminal is closed. The
Airport is also equipped with an Automated Weather Observation System (AWOS) which
provides current weather conditions by radio or telephone, 24 hours a day. Fueling facilities are
managed by the Airport Authority. Maintenance and snow removal is handled by Airport
personnel.
3797-00&300 1-5 November 1994
Mat
Currently, 180 aircraft are based at Greeley-Weld County Airport. Single-engine aircraft comprise
the majority of based aircraft, however,there are 20 twin-engine aircraft, 1 turboprop aircraft, and
2 business jets based at the Airport. The Airport has become a primary training facility and will
continue to see an increase in student flight operations. Along with the training activity there
is also an increase in use of the Airport by larger business aircraft including business/executive
jets. There are currently over 40 corporate-owned aircraft that utilize the Airport regularly, as well
as numerous others that frequent the Airport on a transient basis.
A Master Plan Update Study and a"draft" EA for a New Runway 17/35 Complex were completed
for Greeley-Weld County Airport in 1990. However,a proposal for expanding Runway 17/35 was
rejected in the public review process, causing the Airport to search for new capacity
enhancement alternatives. An analysis of the new alternatives led the Greeley-Weld County
Airport Authority to approve a new 10,000-foot northwest-southeast runway to be located just
west of the current north-south runway. The Airport Authority approved the new runway plan by
a vote of 6 to 1 on December 16, 1993. The new runway alternative was subsequently approved
on January 11, 1994, by the Greeley City Council, on a 6 to 0 vote, and by the Board of Weld
County Commissioners, on a 5 to 0 vote.
A Master Plan Update Study Summary Report was completed for Greeley-Weld County Airport
in 1994. The objective of the summary report was to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages
of each Airport development alternative, compare preliminary cost estimates of each alternative,
provide a complete and updated Airport Layout Plan (ALP) drawing set for the 'preferred"
alternative and present a brief overview of the "preferred" alternative's potential environmental
impacts.
The primary steps involved in the selection of an alternative runway alignment were as follows:
• Forecast aviation activity,evaluate alternatives,and make recommendations for the long
term viability of the Airport;
• Determine practical development staging which (1) correspond to forecast demand,
(2) are consistent with community development goals, (3) provide the most
cost-effective solution to local aviation needs, and (4) serve the largest segment of the
entire community;
• Provide maximum flexibility to adjust to unforeseen demands and requirements
throughout the planning period; and
• Assure environmental compatibility of the Airport with surrounding land uses.
3797-00&300 1-6 November 1994
Belt
The City of Greeley and Weld County as owners, and the Greeley-Weld County Airport Authority
as operator of the Airport are proposing to construct a new runway complex at the present
Airport site to accommodate the increased training activity and to permit safer operations of
larger business jets. The proposed construction of Runway 16/34 would accommodate future
Airport demand and permit Airport development which is compatible with surrounding land uses.
The proposed areas of improvement include:
• The acquisition of approximately 350 acres of land to accommodate the proposed
improvements to the airport. The land acquisition would include a portion of Section 2,
Township 5 North, Range 65 West, and portions of Sections 26 and 35, Township 6
North, Range 65 West (see Figure 1-2). The Airport Authority's intent is to keep as
much of this land in agricultural production as possible. No dwelling unit relocations
would be required; however,two relocations are being considered after discussions with
the landowners and FM because of the close proximity of the residences to the year
201565 day-night average sound level (Ldn) noise contour.
• Construction of Runway 16/34 to an ultimate length of 10,000 feet and a width of
100 feet.
• Closing, relocating, or bridging a portion of County Road 62 (Bliss Road). Closing or
relocating portions of County Roads 64 and 641/2. Alternative solutions to
accommodating the Airport expansion and making it compatible with the area's road
network will be examined in the EA. The analysis will consider existing and projected
traffic levels on the affected roads; existing and planned land uses in the Airport's
vicinity; and transportation plans.
1.4 The Need for an Environmental Assessment
The purposes of the 1990 Airport Master Plan Update Study and the 1994 Airport Master Plan
Update Study Summary Report were to review aviation demands throughout northern Colorado
and Weld County, and propose a course of action to accommodate those demands. Specific
issues included the overcapacity and capability demands and changing character of demand
being placed on existing Airport facilities. The inherent safety concerns dealing with this
overcapacity are also included for justification of the proposed improvements. The existing
Airport as well as alternative sites were analyzed for potential development. It was concluded
in the site selection element of the study that the existing Airport provided the most desirable
location for the proposed facilities. Further discussion of development alternatives are included
in Chapter 2.0.
3797-006-300 1-7 November 1994
_aidO11171Y-- FIGURE 1 -2
�S UAW DEI.OPMNT PLAN
L I /, II
II
,I ® f
� . m i
• Sth I.
/CITY ��/1 , d i I
1
/. L lily.
1 11
i JC -, ;;
,;
FUTURE FLIGHT PATTERNS • �;h III V:
L-,
till
'
i1
1 11 II
J
i1h1 II
I
600 0 60O 1200 1800 I r
SCALE IN FEET FUTURE RUNWAY >p II
• 18/94
EXISTING PROPERTY •. f
Pi
N rjj
T +i 1• •
1
I. 11
4•`` !Ip
.`• lit
41
4
i 11� EXISTING RUNWAY
i mi EXISTING 1
RUNWAY 9/27 • ' Y I!I I •5, h`
ibir
ki
a/ IL.
b
•
Bel t
As defined in FM Order 5050.4A, an EA is required prior to the construction of a new runway.
The proposed project is consistent with the approved Airport Master Plan Study and Colorado
State Airport System Plan. Further development of Greeley-Weld County Airport is required to
support forecasted General Aviation Activity. Anticipated increases in training and business
traffic are expected to contribute to the economic growth of Weld County and the Greeley area.
1.5 Air Traffic Activity Forecasts and Capacity Considerations
Aviation activity at Greeley-Weld County Airport has fluctuated year to year, but the consistency
of forecasts by the FM and by the CDOT Division of Aeronautics indicates the following:
• Activity by corporations using this Airport is a major source of Airport and economy
related activity. Itinerant activity is projected by FM to have an increasing share of total
Airport operations as is presented in Table 1-1. Total Airport operations are projected
to increase beyond Airport capacity by 1994 according to FM forecasts.
• In a slightly more conservative study, total Airport operations are projected to reach
93 percent of airfield capacity (204,100 annual operations) by the year 1995, and exceed
airfield capacity by 17.5 percent before the year 2015, according to the Eastern Plains
Element of the Colorado Aviation Systems Plan (CASP), as presented in Table 1-2.
• Current Airport activity is estimated to range from 155,082 to 166,322 annual operations
with the majority of these operations conducted in training activity. In addition, itinerant
jet activity has increased significantly in the last few years.
• Aviation industry standards for airport planning indicate that when a runway system
reaches 60 percent of capacity, steps to increase that capacity should be taken.
Greeley-Weld County Airport is currently at approximately 90 percent of capacity. In
addition, the existing 6,200-foot primary runway does not provide the capacity to
accommodate medium to long range stage lengths for current business jet use. FM
recommends that this Airport be improved with airport capacity enhancements within
the next five years as indicated in the NPIAS, 1990 - 1999.
The NPIAS 1990-1999 provides base year (1990),five year (1994), and ten year (1999) estimates
of aviation activity for airports nationwide. The forecast activity for Greeley-Weld County Airport
is shown in Table 1-1.
The "draft" GASP published November 11, 1993 by Bucher, Willis, & Ratliff, an independent
engineering firm contracted by the CDOT Division of Aeronautics,recommends that a 10,000-foot
3797-006-300 1-9 November 1994
Table 1-1
Federal Aviation Administration Forecasts
Greeley-Weld County Airport
ITEM 1990 1994 1999
Service Level General Aviation General Aviation General Aviation
Airport Role General Utility Transport Type Transport Type
Based Aircraft 255 257 259
Total Operations 161,000 217,000 264,000
Itinerant Operations 77,000 (41.8 %) 113,000 (52.1 %) 143,000 (54.2 %)
(Percent of Total)
Source: National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems, 1990-1999
1-10
Table 1-2
Colorado Aviation System Plan Forecasts
Greeley-Weld County Airport
Operations (Capacity) Annual: 204,100 Hourly (VFR): 117 Hourly (IFR): 61
Operations (Demand) Year 2015: 240,000 Annual Operations
Source: Colorado Aviation System Plan, Eastern Plains Element, Bucher, Willis & Ratliff,
March 1994. The annual and hourly capacity estimates agree with the, Airport Master Plan
Update, Isbill Associates, 1990.
1-11
EICR
long Runway 16/34 be constructed and a new terminal building containing at least 6,000 square
feet of space be built at Greeley-Weld County Airport. The new runway is recommended in order
to "alleviate the Airport's capacity deficit and accommodate large business aircraft.' The
recommendations in the system plan for both length and alignment are consistent with the 1990
Draft Airport Master Plan Update Study by Isbill Associates, Inc. and with the studies performed
by the Airport management since 1990. Forecasts from the CASP are presented in Table 1-2.
1.6 Facility Requirements
In order to meet the projected growth of aviation activity through the year 2015 as presented in
the CASP, the facility requirements for an expanded Airport must be examined. Greeley-Weld
County Airport has been developed over an approximate 50 year period in a series of expansion
and improvement projects.
1.6.1 Existing Facilities
• Runway 9/27 is 6,200 feet long and 100 feet wide and is equipped with a MALSR to
Runway end 9.
• Runway 17/35 is 3,600 feet long and 75 feet wide.
• Turf/gravel Runway 3/21 is 1,662 feet long and 130 feet wide. This runway is available
for VFR daytime use only.
• Numerous navigational and approach aids are available including the VORTAC located
at Gill, Colorado, approximately six miles northeast of the Airport; Medium Intensity
Runway Lighting (MIRL) system on Runway 9/27; Runway End Identifier Lights (REIL)
on Runway 27 and MALSR on Runway 9; Precision Approach Path Indicator (Runway
9) and Visual Approach Slope Indicator (VASI) for Runway 27.
1.6.2 Demand/Capacity Review
The CASP reports the existing Greeley-Weld County Airport has a capacity of 204,100 annual
operations and a need for a 10,000-foot long primary runway. In order to meet these
requirements the following improvements have been recommended:
• Construct a new Runway 16/34 to an ultimate length of 10,000 feet.
3797ms300 1-12
November 1994
Bat
• The 6,200-foot length of the existing Runway 9/27 and the 3,600-foot length of the
existing Runway 17/35 is too short for the corporate aviation users of large jet aircraft
at the Airport, necessitating a runway expansion or construction of a new runway to
provide the required length.
• Acquire sufficient land in the first stage of development to accommodate the future
10,000-foot runway. Acquisition of land provides both for required land and provides
a buffer to minimize noise impacts on surrounding areas.
• Relocate hangars, buildings, and support facilities within the recommended Building
Restriction Line (BRL) or the Runway Visibility Zone (RVZ).
• Close turf/gravel Runway 3/21 when the new 10,000 feet runway is available for use.
1.6.3 Runway Lengths
FM provides a computer program which computes the required runway lengths at airports given
the airport elevation, mean daily maximum temperature of the hottest month, maximum
difference in runway centerline elevation, and length of haul for airplanes of more than
60,000 pounds. This computer program is based on FM Advisory Circular AC 150/5300-13,
Airport Design. The results of the computer program are presented in Table 1-3. For
Greeley-Weld County Airport it is proposed that the primary runway length should be built to an
ultimate length of 10,000 feet, the crosswind runway should be a minimum of 6,090 feet long,
and a short parallel training runway should be provided. The results of this FM program agree
with the recommendations in the CASP.
1.7 Requested Federal Action
The requested Federal actions are:
• Approve EA as submitted;
• Approval, under 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 157 [(49 U.S.C. 1354(a)]
of the development proposals from an airspace perspective, based upon aeronautical
studies.
• Under the authority of 49 U.S.C. 1348 (a) & (c), the development of air traffic control
and airspace management procedures to effect the safe and efficient movement of air
traffic to, from, and around the airport, including:
3797-006-300 1-13 November 1994
Table 1-3
FAA Recommened Runway Lengths
Greeley-Weld County Airport
AIRPORT OR AIRCRAFT ELEMENTS DATA
A. Airport Elevation 4,658 feet
B. Mean Daily Maximum Temperature of the Hottest Month 91.10°F
C. Maximum Difference in Runway Centerline Elevation 18 feet
D. Length of Haul for Airplanes of more than 60,000 pounds 1,500 miles
RUNWAY LENGTHS RECOMMENDED FOR AIRPORT DESIGN
Small Airplanes with Less than 10 Passenger Seats
75 Percent of these small airplanes 4,430 feet
95 Percent of these small airplanes 5,850 feet
100 Percent of these small airplanes 6,090 feet
Small Airplanes With 10 or More Passenger Seats 6,090 feet
Large Airplanes of 60,000 Pounds or Less
75 Percent of these large airplanes at 60 percent useful load 6,720 feet
75 Percent of these large airplanes at 90 percent useful load 8,780 feet
100 Percent of these large airplanes at 60 percent useful load 10,250 feet
100 Percent of these large airplanes at 90 percent useful load 11,180 feet
Airplanes of More than 60,000 Pounds, (approximately) 9,030 feet
Source: FM Advisory Circular AC 150/5300-13,Airport Design.
1-14
- the design, development and establishment of air traffic control procedures;
- the development of a system for the routing of arriving and departing traffic;
- the design, establishment, and publication of standardized flight operating
procedures, including standard terminal arrival routes, instrument approach
procedures, and standard instrument departure procedures;
- approval, under CFR Part 77, regarding obstructions in navigable airspace.
• A positive FM decision to provide financial support for eligible development projects,
through the Federal grant-in-aid program (49 U.S.C. App. 2201 et. seq.).
• Other agency approvals necessary for this project to proceed to completion, which
involve the FAA's Airports program, airport layout plan approval (see 49 U.S.C. App.
2210(a)(15), and environmental approval (see 42 U.S.C. 4321 et. seq. and 40 CFR 1500
et. seq.).
3797-006300 1-15 November 1994
ENZIt
2.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
2.1 Introduction
Greeley-Weld County Airport (Airport) has become a primary training facility and will continue to
see an increase in student flight operations. 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 safety and efficiency of operations at the Airport. The
primary improvements suggested for the Airport were evaluated in several alternatives.
The following alternatives were examined:
• Take No Action;
• Alternative "EW": East-West Primary Runway;
• Alternative "NS": North-South Primary Runway; and
• Alternative "NW": Northwest-Southeast Primary Runway (the Preferred Alternative).
A discussion of the alternatives is included in this section of the Environmental Assessment(EA).
2.2 Alternatives Considered
2.2.1 Take No Action
Taking no action would not provide the users of Greeley-Weld County Airport with a facility to
accommodate the increased demands already placed upon it. Greeley-Weld County Airport is
unique for general aviation airports in that it serves a significant number of business jets and
training aircraft. At the present time the fleet mix using Greeley-Weld County Airport includes:
Business Jets Gulfstream IV, Citations, Saberliners, Falcons and Learjets;
Heavy Twins Beech King Air 100s, 200s and 3005;
3797-006-300 2-1
November 1994
E
Light Twins Beech Barons and Duchess; and
Single Engine Cessna 150 through 210.
The occurrence of low level overflights due to aircraft in approach patterns at Greeley-Weld
County Airport is a result of the present runway configuration. The "Take No Action' alternative
ignores the inherent incompatibility presented by requiring aircraft to overfly the City of Greeley
and the safety concerns of mixing slower training activity and faster business jets on the same
runway. Taking no action also overlooks the demands of the present facility with regards to
capacity and capability demands of the Airport. This alternative also ignores community needs
and the economies of the City of Greeley and Weld County. This alternative is not acceptable
due to the increased demands already being placed on the Airport and the lack of safety
concerns being addressed.
2.2.2 Alternative "EW": East-West Primary Runway
This alternative includes the initial and ultimate lengths for the primary Runway 9R/27L (see
Figure 2-1). The advantages/disadvantages of this alternative follow:
The advantages of this alternative include:
• The local community perceives this alternative can be accomplished in less time than
the others.
The disadvantages of this alternative include:
• Actual construction time required to complete this alternative is projected to be nearly
identical to the other alternatives.
• The terminal building would have to be relocated or a new terminal constructed.
• Construction of an extended Runway 9/27 and the realignment of the parallel taxiway
will require periodic closures of the Airport during the construction period.
• The installation of the approach light system for the extended runway can be located
so as to fit around Cherry Avenue, however for a runway length over 8,000 feet, Cherry
Avenue would have to be bridged, relocated or closed.
3797-006-300 2-2 November 1994
o q
op
I O
N ,
W
N z
--mgzMIK s
WO inel
CC
M r. Q •
• a iii
o
•
02
cc m
' r
2 N~
I Um cc
O iii a -. . ...
cn▪co
��
aw 0 _ / / r`1 ge.Liu L-- 1 i - 3 r / , r -�J
•
il aimmorm. i L.t. 4,,,,,. >
W } ..7
a z
W. N
7c...
. W Q I .... W OC i
.. "
LL a m; N I + ' L"I -.411C4t74 4
• 'X F\ §a /
• LL F4•' LL O!
nX
/;Lig
et
.....1 r I�I I.-fillir / I s4o
/ /
/4 ...// 17Q L . +..w.
■ Z n
0 —di
• CC OZ /�` : N
W
w 0 •" I 02 /ujO / 1 01
4Z a. ' O►w- / • 1 a
CC¢~ Z 0.111/ 1 Z
IL F / 1 oc
U D X I 1-J 0
K W ! / J 2
W H
0 2 :/ 1 C4C N
r
I ar w
..,rr.r.... w 4
r 0.0 cc
=X
k m 4
..,�.,.. ....w,,......,,. .mow.,..... ,..+«,.. iiii4 w1 . LL I• — a
w — .: - ' t w V
to zrn ,•G W N, 0 a 0
fT) 9 i I ▪ W ill O
11-4 1 le
CC
F
C4 1 f.; I y
A7 irk 1- OQ 7 O < W 2
N h rg WO
i f W (0....
O No
J Z U
�♦ N W N N ~ W M
i �•1, CL
fO �1J1�tJ1 �.y.5 ui OF_ i-p,.. W,` ? < %• LLa 3331>Vc !-dW5
• I a CO 411.0 O W a�
41• 0 m .; A 1(• a 4l= l— 0 0 us
h J 2 =�z¢ Wx2242oe0
I � ..�\\F a m>. W 4<'p wow XZF0o0C
'�' F IL —ILI i-C Q N 2 F� 0
40 _I 002x..a = Wotwad
1 ! S
• Bliss Road would be relocated for construction of the extension of Runway 9/27. Bliss
t Road would also need to be bridged, closed or rerouted for construction of the
extended and widened Runway 17/35.
' • Expansion of the runway to the west would result in more intense aircraft noise in the
residential areas on the east side of Greeley (the existing residential area would be
' within about one-half mile of the ultimate extended runway).
• Flight tracks from the extended runway would extend further west and would be over
' residential and commercial areas closer to downtown Greeley, with the heavier and
noisier aircraft operating over the densely populated areas and the quieter aircraft
' operating over sparsely populated areas.
• At least six residences and/or farmhouses located near the intersection of Cherry
Avenue and Bliss Road would require relocation.
• At least two existing oil wells would be capped, modified, or removed, and storage
ttanks would be modified.
• Ten additional structures, including eight aircraft hangars (total of 88,200 square feet)
and the fuel farms would be relocated when the parallel taxiway is straightened to meet
setback criteria for an instrument runway.
• Construction of the runway in two stages will involve moving the instrument landing
system twice (not required in other alternatives).
' 2.2.3 Alternative "NS": North-South Primary Runway
' The north-south alternative was included in the 1990 "draft" EA. This alternative included
extending the existing Runway 17/35 northward for a total length of 10,000 feet. A new
' 4,400-foot long parallel north/south runway would be constructed eastward of the existing
runway, and Runway 9/27 would continue to be utilized as a Visual Flight Rules (VFR)-only
runway (see Figure 2-2).
The benefits of the north-south alternative include:
' • This alternative provides better wind coverage than is available for the east-west runway
alternative.
I
' 3797-006-300 2-4 November 1994
9M0"SN-aVM
133J NI 31V3S
NOILOflH18N00 0131dHlV 0380dOHd moriori
0081 00Z 009 0 009 31411 A1tl3dOHd 3Hflllld-
I 3NI1 A1H3dOHd 6141181X3.----
3N0Z A111I9ISIA AVMNltl Zna
8DNIO11n8 ONI181X3 •
N 1VA0IV3H 033N ION AVIV 0
(03AOIV3tl 38 011 83WI110ltl1S 1HOdtIV Ily
(03AOIV3H 38 01)
, /- 83ll10ptl18 IVIIV3 0NV 3SOOH
(1VAOIV3H 033N416
ION AVIV) 8113M 8VD ONV 110
Ilv
(031HI00IV 38 01) 9113M 8VD 0NV 110 .
, ; -; j ON3D31
4
F- 1
T
L
Ili ?'�' JI, yam:".
' ..
cc
113e/111. 4
AVMNON 0380d0Hd
. ""'.....„ DNI1SIX3 l
��
-----...--..-, //i
1319811 10C111161400 •' A1tl3d0Hd 6141161X3HO OVOH SSI18 38010 ,r , II • •
I l' 1 19e/HLI AVMNfH 0380dOHd
I I
I
I . i :
ll
............./
A1H3dOHd l{
3Hfllfld
t�,,l' .,SM., ,7.LVNdi,L7V ?JaiN?I',L.LVd ,LHOI7,�
I
V9 OVOH 313010 N c---- -
/4
• �i Ij csa 1r ,� ,,,ii. /. A37.732l0;
iU�l� iLf A.LI3/
I 6
,II ,
i
I
I
I
r'
11 i
•
tf-4SNtt 3AlliVNI131-11f
btfi/At
Al , ' 'MIN
Z—Z 31:11101A
DInt
• Disruption of residential areas is minor.
• Aircraft operating on the north-south parallel runways would have their flight tracks over
less populated areas as compared with operations with the east-west alternative. Most
approaches to the Airport would be from the south over the river and floodplains, and
departures to the north would be over predominantly agricultural land with widely
scattered residences.
• Runway 9/27, in this alternative, can be used as a fully-developed cross-wind runway.
The parallel taxiway would not need to be realigned.
• Runway 9/27 and Runway 17/35 could continue in operation with only minor
disruptions in activity during the construction cycle for the new north-south runways.
• The existing north-south and east-west aircraft traffic patterns would continue, with the
larger and heavier aircraft operating to the north and south over open farming land to
the north or over floodplain areas to the south.
• Training activity would occur east of Runway 17/35 over agricultural land and in traffic
patterns now used by the Airport.
• There would be minor or limited change in the use of hangars or other buildings in the
terminal area, with the final determination of hangar relocations to be made by the
Federal Aviation Administration (FM).
The disadvantages of this alternative include the following:
• More land would be acquired than with the east-west alternative.
• Bliss Road would be bridged or closed,and County Roads 64 and 641/2 would be closed
or relocated.
• The existing hangar located south of the east end of Runway 9/27 and east of the
existing terminal building would need to be relocated.
• Five dwelling units, including farm structures would be relocated with associated power
lines and other utilities capped or relocated.
3797.006-300 2-6 November 1994
• The Coors water injection well located north of County Road 64 would be capped -and
all storage tanks, pumps and facilities relocated.
• Oil wells would be capped or modified, and oil storage tanks relocated.
2.2.4 Alternative "NW": Northwest-Southeast Primary Runway (The Preferred
Alternative)
Alternative north-south alignments and orientations were explored in the 1990 'draft" EA, and
studies by Airport Management have continued since that time which has led to the development
of this alternative. This alternative retains existing Runway 9/27 to be operated as a
non-precision instrument runway; existing Runway 17/35 to be used as a training VFR-only
runway; and the new northwest-southeast runway would operate as a precision instrument
runway, and is to be oriented less than 3 degrees to the west as compared with the alignment
of Runway 17/35, but is shifted about 700 feet west of Runway 17/35 (see Figure 2-3).
The runway alignment studies considered the location of adjacent residences, farms, oil wells,
airport structures, other elements of concern, and the engineering feasibility of the various
alignments. These elements were presented during the Airport Master Plan Update Study
process, reviewed with Airport Management, and alternative alignments were considered. The
recommended northwest-southeast alternative entails the least requirement to relocate
residences, oil and gas wells/storage tanks, and other users.
The south end of the proposed runway to be constructed in the initial stage was set to clear the
primary surface width of 1,000 feet for Runway 9/27, or 500 feet north of the centerline of the
runway. The primary mode of operation for the Airport would shift from current operations on
the east-west runway, to the new northwest-southeast runway complex. The new runway is
defined to be a Runway 16/34 alignment to differentiate the new runway from the alignment for
Runway 17/35.
FAA has reviewed this alternative, and has determined that there are no major problems with this
concept. A detailed airspace coordination will be conducted by FM after the final plans are
submitted for FAA review and approval. The advantages of the northwest-southeast alternative
include:
• No dwelling unit relocations would be required; however, two relocations are being
considered after discussions with the landowners and FAA because of the close
proximity of the residences to the year 2015 65 day-night average sound level (Ldn)
noise contour.
3797-006-300 2-7 November 1984
illi E E E MO Mil NM - I= - WM OW NM - MI WO OW OM ow
&i
FIGURE 2-3
INI
ALTERNATIVE " 11:x'"
•
i---� * ; ,4:-I I!
8 41 €' + *
• CLOSE OR RELOCATE •
ROAD 84 1/2 I11
r �=
.• W_ C� l
•
•
„,:////,://,:////////7r " � � `' �� r 263 '' [.......„..1 '•
CREELEY j /� 11:=- •
'
CLOSE
*4O ROAD 84
FLIGHT PATTERN FOR ALTERNATE NW" I('"il
FUTURE
PROPERTY
II
• I:
I�
:
I
PROPOSED RUNWAY ' 7411V I
♦ ' 18/34 LOSE BLISS ROAD OR
CONSTRUCT TUNNEL
EXISTING PROPERTY •,,' III ll .
,
��
/ • �� 9
' R EXISTING RUNWAY
� ID �'il"
''+w x111IIIIIIIIII:1111111ii' .:.., ... . !,
/35
EXISTING RUNWAY 9/27 -L 0 . , ' «K c<<,:,,,si1/4,,_ L. , I:. .., .
: _
,,.; : „v.. , : . .. 4z. 1,, c _
— - .i,.; , ,.., ii,..
:• .,,, li. , 1
al 44 ' % i
LEGEND / •
• OIL AND GAS WELLS (TO BE MODIFIED) �/
fOIL AND GAS WELLS (MAY NOT
NEED REMOVAL) f`'`
(TO BE AND
EMOVED) STRUCTURES ,j
, Ii1J
A AIRPORT STRUCTURES ITO BE REMOVED)
• MAY NOT NEED REMOVAL I
• EXISTING BUILDINGS
RVZ RUNWAY VISIBILITY ZONE
-------,EXISTING PROPERTY LINE
,- ....,FUTURE PROPERTY LINE 6c•3 o 600 1200 -eio
wNIMOINS PROPOSED AIRFIELD CONSTRUCTION SCALE N FEET
DER
• Wind coverage is better than with either of the other two alternatives.
• Construction of Runway 16/34 could be staged to minimize runway closure of Runway
9/27 and Runway 17/35 could operate without interruption.
• The Coors water injection well would not be disturbed.
• The existing north-south and east-west aircraft traffic patterns would continue, with the
larger and heavier aircraft operating generally to the west of the new Runway 16/34 over
open farming land, and the smaller aircraft operating over established existing flight
patterns east of the Airport. With the majority of operations performed over agricultural
land or the floodplain related to the river south of the Airport, the noise impacts on
residents would be minimized.
• This is the least costly alternative of those proposed.
• This alternative would satisfy all current and projected capability and capacity demands
for the foreseeable future.
The disadvantages of this alternative include:
• Oil wells would need to be capped or modified and oil storage tanks relocated.
• More land would be acquired than with the east-west alternative.
• Bliss Road would be bridged or closed and the dirt County Roads 64 and 641 would
be closed or relocated.
• The terminal building and one other hangar would have to be relocated. It does not
appear that any other buildings on the Airport would need to be relocated; however,
FM will make a final determination as to relocation requirements for buildings on the
Airport.
a797me-aoo 2-9 November 1994
alat
2.3 Applicable Government Regulations
• Airport Safety and Capacity Act of 1990
• Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (4(f) Lands)
• National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
• The Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended
• Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970
• Clean Air Amendments of 1977 or 1990
• Clean Water Act of 1972
• Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
• Noise and Capacity Act of 1990
• Noise Control Act of 1972
• Endangered Species Act of 1973
• Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973
• Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1974
• Coastal Barriers Resource Act of 1982
• Farmland Protection Policy Act
• Floodplain Management, Executive Order 11988
• Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
• Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
• Protection of Wetlands, Executive Order 11990
• National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits (stormwater
discharges)
• Air and Water Quality Regulations of the State of Colorado. This includes an Air
Pollution Emission Notice (APEN) for Fugitive Dust from the Colorado Department of
Health-Air Pollution Control Division
• Zoning Regulations of Weld County
• Zoning Regulations of the City of Greeley
3787-006300 2-10 November 1994
EMIR
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
The affected environment (project area) is generally defined as Greeley-Weld County Airport
(Airport) and its environs, including the community of Greeley and Weld County, Colorado. The
locations of Greeley-Weld County Airport and other nearby airports in Colorado and Wyoming
are shown on Figure 1-1. The entrance to Greeley-Weld County Airport is located approximately
2.5 miles east of the City of Greeley on State Highway 263.
The National Plan for Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) currently classifies Greeley-Weld
- County Airport as a General Utility Airport. 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 installation of an Instrument Landing System (ILS) with
Medium Intensity Approach Lights with Runway Alignment Indicator Lights (MALSR) in 1984 on
Runway 9/27 has provided the Airport with a 6,200-foot long precision approach runway. All
Airport facilities are shown on the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) which is included in Appendix A of
this Environmental Assessment (EA).
An Environmental Impact Assessment Report was prepared for Greeley-Weld County Airport in
1978 along with an Airport Master Plan. A Master Plan Update Study and a 'draft" EA for a New
Runway 17/35 Complex were completed for Greeley-Weld County Airport in 1990. However,the
proposal for expanding Runway 17/35 was rejected in the public review process, causing the
Airport to search for new capacity enhancement alternatives. An analysis of the new alternatives
led the Greeley-Weld County Airport Authority to approve a new 10,000-foot northwest-southeast
Runway 16/34 to be located just west of the current north-south runway.
A Master Plan Update Study Summary Report was completed for Greeley-Weld County Airport
in 1994. The objective of the summary report was to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages
of each Airport development alternative, compare preliminary cost estimates of each alternative,
provide a complete and updated ALP drawing set for the "preferred' alternative, and present a
brief overview of the"preferred"alternative's potential environmental impacts. These documents
form the basis of the examination of the environmental impacts associated with the proposed
construction of Runway 16/34.
According to the Weld County Planning Department, the county's population increased by
25 percent between 1980 and 1990; from 123,438 people in 1980 to 154,373 people in 1990.
The county population is projected to increase by 23 percent between 1990 and 2000. The
3797.096300 3-1 November 1994
community of Greeley has grown moderately since the 1980 census and future growth is
expected to continue to be moderate. The city's population is projected to increase by
23 percent between 1990 and 2000; from 66,806 people to 82,398 people (Weld County 1992).
The economy of the community is based on meat packing, agriculture, education, oil and gas
exploration, and manufacturing.
Land use in Weld County and the City of Greeley Is controlled by the division of governments
concerned. Requests for land development in the County controlled areas are reviewed and are
approved or disapproved based on an environmental review and compatibility of the use with
Airport operations. Requests for development within the City of Greeley are reviewed and
approved or disapproved based on the City Master Plan and existing zoning.
The land adjacent to the Airport within City jurisdiction is presently zoned for commercial and
industrial use. The remaining land within the Airport area is zoned agricultural which presently
allows low density development (one house per ten acres of land). Development is controlled
by the subdivision regulations through Colorado Senate Bill 35 and a local technical review staff.
In addition, local practices require that any proposed land development in the area of the Airport
be sent to the Federal Aviation Administration (FM) for their comments on the compatibility of
the proposed development with the Airport, and recommendations of the Airport Master Plan.
The Proposed Action and the Land Use Plan (See Appendix B) are not in conflict with the
policies and comprehensive plans of the City of Greeley and Weld County. Both have provided
assurances to the FM that they will strive to maintain land use compatibility in the use of lands
adjacent to the Airport.
There are no public schools in the vicinity of the Airport. There have been no known complaints
from community schools about Airport operations or noise levels. The majority of the current
65 day-night average sound level (Ldn) noise contour is within Airport property; however, a part
of this noise contour does extend outside of Airport property.
There are no known existing or proposed Federal, State or Local projects that would be
adversely affected by the proposed expansion of Greeley-Weld County Airport. Airspace and air
traffic interaction between Greeley-Weld County Airport and Denver International Airport have
been carefully examined and found to be non-conflicting.
The primary areas of impact on the community associated with the proposed development are
noise,the preservation of air quality,the closure, relocation, or bridging of County Road 62 (Bliss
Road), the closure or relocation of portions of County Roads 64 and 641/2, the acquisition of
11 parcels of land totalling approximately 350 acres, the potential relocation of two residences,
3797-00&300 3-2 November 1994
EICR
and the modification, plugging, or abandoning of oil and gas wells. These are discussed in
Chapter 4.0 - Environmental Consequences.
3797-006-300 3-3 November 1994
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4.1 Introduction
Chapter 4.0 of this Environmental Assessment (EA) presents a discussion of the environmental
- consequences that would result from implementation of the proposed Greeley-Weld County
Airport(Airport) expansion project. Agencies at the Local, State,and Federal levels that exercise
responsibility and/or have an interest in specific environmental impact areas were sent
information regarding the planned Airport development for comment. Agency responses to this
inquiry are included in Appendix C of this EA. Requests for additional information were
responded to in the appropriate impact category. The following specific impact categories to be
examined in this EA are described in Federal Aviation Administration (FM) Order 5050.4A:
• 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
The following discussion for each category presents a comparison of the environmental
consequences of the "Take No Action" alternative and Alternative "NW": Northwest-Southeast
Primary Runway (Proposed Action). The other alternatives, including Alternative "EW":
3797-006-300 4-1 November 1994
East-West Primary Runway and Alternative 'NS': North-South Primary Runway, have been
dropped from further consideration, as described in Chapter 2.0.
The area of influence for the project varies from resource to resource. For example,the affected
area for certain land-based resources such as soils and vegetation would be confined to the
immediate area of disturbance (e.g., runways and taxiways). For other resources, such as air
quality and noise, a larger area would be affected. The discussion of each resource reflects the
potential impacts anticipated for that resource and the scope of issues for the resource.
Resources that would not be affected by the implementation of the proposed project or
alternative, and issues that were not identified during the agency coordination process as areas
of concern, have not been discussed in detail.
4.2 Noise
4.21 General Discussion
Historically, noise has been viewed as the most obvious and objectionable impact of airports and
airport development. Generally, reaction to noise is subjective, which makes individual
responses to noise difficult to predict. The degree to which an individual finds aircraft-generated
noise"annoying"will determine his or her reaction to airport operations, particularly when airport
expansion is proposed. A standard text on measurements of sound, prepared by the FM, is
presented in Appendix D,to provide a basic understanding of the parameters utilized in the noise
analysis.
The identification of airport generated noise impacts and implementation of noise abatement
measures is a joint responsibility of airport operators and users. In the preparation of an EA,
FM order 5050.4A stresses the need for an analysis of community exposure to aircraft sound.
This information can be used to plan compatibility between the airport and the surrounding
community. The FM requires that all proposals for new runway construction, major runway
extension, or runway strengthening (to accommodate larger aircraft) be supported with a noise
impact analysis and assessment of all off-airport noise impacts. A complete noise analysis
including long-range noise contours was prepared for this EA. The Proposed Action included
in this assessment involves new runway construction and is expected to significantly change the
present noise contours for the Airport.
Noise, in varying degrees, has always been a part of our environment. Over the years, human
adaptability to sounds has been evident. However, increased urbanization has indirectly
changed the intensity and duration of these sounds to the point that fluctuations in the noise
3797-006300 4-2 November 1994
Mit
level have become an annoyance to many. Since the advent of jet aircraft, airport noise has
become the focus of public concern and controversy with regard to the environment.
_ The basic measure of noise is the sound pressure level which is recorded in decibels. An
important concept to understand when considering the impact of noise on communities is that
equal levels of sound pressure can be measured for both high and low frequency sounds.
Generally,people are less sensitive to sounds of low frequency than they are to high frequencies.
An example of this might be the difference between the rumble of automobile traffic on a nearby
highway and the high pitched whine of jet aircraft passing overhead. At any location, over a
period of time, sound pressure fluctuates considerably between high and low frequencies.
In addition to changes in sound frequencies with time, the presence of various noises is not
constant. Particularly in the case of aircraft activity, noise is constantly moving. Consequently,
an instantaneous measurement of the noise emitted by an aircraft passing overhead does not
depict accurately the noise exposure over a given period of time. Therefore, a statistical
approach termed the Equivalent Sound Level (Leg) was formulated to describe the equivalent
(steady-state) noise level which, over a specific period of time, would have the same net effect
as the time varying level. This approach has been expanded through the use of mathematical
simulation models.
For purposes of this study, the FM approved Integrated Noise Model (INM) was used to
delineate the affected area, noise intensity, and noise contours for the proposed expansion.
Input to the INM consists of the runway configuration, the aircraft fleet, flight tracks, and aircraft
operations allocated by aircraft type and time of day.
The measuring unit to predict the impact of aircraft noise on and around the Airport is Day-Night
Average Sound Level (Ldn). The Ldn was developed in 1973-74 for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). Ldn is based on an energy summation of the aggregate noise
environment as measured in A-weighted decibel units (dBA), with aircraft operations during the
period 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. weighted by a 10 decibel penalty.
The FM and other governmental agencies, such as the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), consider residential development in areas situated near airports, and
impacted by noise levels of 65 Ldn and greater, as being not compatible with airport operations,
and a negative response from citizens should be expected. The 65 Ldn level is a guideline used
by Federal agencies to determine compatible land use around airports. It is recognized that
noise complaints can and will occur in areas impacted by lesser noise levels since the degree
of citizen reaction and complaints will vary, and since the human perception of noise is
subjective.
3797.006390 4-3 November 1994
ERR
When a noise study is completed in association with a proposed airport expansion plan, a noise
analysis is performed to determine noise impacts based on existing activity at an airport and the
potential noise impacts that could occur in the future based on projected aviation activity.
Information on aircraft types, number and frequency of aircraft operations, runway usage, and
takeoff and landing profiles is used in the development of a computer-generated noise level
contour. The computer model uses this information in its calculations of geographic coordinates
that indicate areas impacted by aircraft noise. These coordinates are then plotted on a map to
assist in the evaluation of the environmental impacts caused by aircraft noise. The purpose of
the noise contour is to delineate those geographic areas that are impacted by noise levels of 65
Ldn and greater, and to identify areas that will be impacted by significant noise levels.
•
4.2.2 Project Impact
The following describes the effect of the noise contours displayed in Figures 4-1, 4-2, and 4-3
based on the forecasted fleet mix, runway configurations and utilization, flight patterns, and
airfield development.
Figure 4-1 shows the existing 1994 noise impact contours associated with the current Airport
configuration. The existing contours reflect the impacts based on the current aircraft fleet mix.
Under existing conditions, approximately 10 acres of land are impacted by noise levels in excess
of 65 Ldn, outside the existing Airport property. No residences or other noise-sensitive receptors
(i.e., schools, hospitals) are impacted by the 1994 65 Ldn noise contour.
Figure 4-2 shows the conditions at Greeley-Weld County Airport in the year 2005, assuming the
new Runway 16/34 would be completed and aircraft traffic would be distributed over a three
runway configuration. The new Runway 16/34 would be used by the majority of the traffic.
Existing Runway 9/27 would be used in crosswind conditions and Runway 17/35 would
accommodate a significant amount of daytime touch and go (training) operations. By 2005,
approximately 270 acres would be impacted by the 65 Ldn contour; however, this impact area
would be included in the 350 acres of land acquired for runway construction. Consequently, no
significant noise impacts are anticipated in the short-term development of the new runway
complex. No residences or other noise-sensitive receptors would be impacted by the 2005
65 Ldn noise contour.
The primary noise generator in all fleet mix scenarios is the business jets. It is expected that in
the next 20 years the majority of the business jet fleet will be of the more sophisticated high
bypass engine variety. This engine design allows for increased airflow around the turbine engine
which results in improved engine efficiency and lower noise generation. The 2015 noise
contours were calculated assuming 50 percent of the business jets would be the larger quieter
3797-006-300 4-4 November 1994
:... . .,.Y.8.i.'t.„';.„.,-tt,i-44.4, ..,..._ ,-,, ...f'tt„..t ,, ,-- .t,,,--- -. , . ..„,,, ' ,i,,.::i!;:.' !..„L. -:_lt I ' , _ _
, _, 1,,,,,,:fr,,.i.", ,,,..,!‘..;,:•,,,,,,,,,,i
!:...-,':'. , a
I i
J tai �' ''. --.:7":7:':,- '� u - ti9r � n- iQ,.. ..:., ...,..,,,..--,-4447 4.::. i1til r•
I 4,4
w1 ii� N
' ��i.:•- K° J... 'Y_. � "a,. .,w , 4 `µ^ „.x^'44,,,_ ' 1 r . ..4 '4
L.` p ' _• r_ ...4. ':I'-''o N J 'r.I
xF ',h.%
` tJ 5s .........__ - fib. • !',;`" ,,•. - SS W si
10 Al
MR i W °' S
' / • • ice; Y • i
a I l CC 0
* �y ,.---. 1 _ w C3
•
i
d IM / I •-•:,-„,,,,,,...,',.'44.r.4„. aill
V, y e .P
to € ft�4 p d _I! y 4 t
C,-..,--,-:-,? ,e..: , :, t•,••, , • •,0.
40,04,;.,•:„...,,, ..A ✓ y ,,,,,,D",:,: � h NF'° e,,, 0,
C.„,,....,..:.,,,,„.0,---- : 9
..
. . . ..1
„.„.
.„.,...,: 4,;.1•„: -._./.,,...-••,.,-•„-:,.--;,„: •--•.,- -:::•.•„,..„,., --If• ,:,:-.1,..4,-H-11. -- . ! .... ...... .............. „ . . ,.
..,.... • .,..„-:-..,--/- - -ii i-,:.‘44.. ... ''''''• '' ,„:,.' ..i.,11 '— ' ,•14.1 SD
ft,
s 1
f .✓ittri.Dc
I l.g!pek � - ,:BSI 'Lw,. r
d g" • ar �
{ i - Y A III s� 1! '�. i"Pq��h ,_,.i` • e,
6 h +IIRIV9o� `�'
,i 1 .'r:•, ', ;'4I:-_,,P1 '' ' -,
�� lit r '
• :r
S e., r a. Ii � F
_. ''. •:'-irl—St: ,!!: '.;-1 -- iii:_ :4-„.i,,,..i.T- ill�! - - 4 I',C• a I - -�. I 4. .41•I�{ 4' b III ' t
I
s v # r III 9
t . I '4 tr, w ; s{.r
t� ., ! _ 41�_
-r•4�4 • pl ii;�ir4;v
( # I
qq I '� 4 "'�' HIV d� ! Y aF illq r 7 1 (C t .ISPT�V�i •I
( 0 j I
— ,.... �. III .
,''': . :. l'' m
z uI z
i:
E I tip>
gg
cr 3I �s},. 1 7a a ; b tif!
u 1
sI 1 • n z
It 7 s ••vF"# Rx ---- a+�. 9 r>:
•
Fi,tq�' .. iZ
e imS' k J - }.s •$� f y'
' ' a tF '+r if • ,wl
ail�' M 9t` 1 - _ ' I t.. �� `� .rte:' a. -- #F0
Q
. ii § -
#.' ` - 1 / a o clitlf ,_.,
ijt • "44*' i Pi; : . ..
-Ok! , • ' ,,:*:.'•-..- -4: •l '_ •CG ,-''. ..-14.;
.fir,--,_ i-
llJ. .r. '.�, -a. 'R,- J4� W 'Lti
,,.... ... 4 iia, -. i.e' •. 0 + x {
�y -; -b
`+ ,�. .s " y,'� »` ? y "I' j yW ii , `', iti d of '*_1,•...•.4-1 -1•"`r),A•c•' ' :11--,-:,,.,,,, ? 11!x► o � b. 1
I
�. i t x E ,
,ill '.1-'4 --.•"•• sit 11.-;10k ''': • . •ii-:i-.":
• •
�' 1 .
h
:: . y ,:-.....i- ..;:;::::::,','..:'!: ,,r. ...I 1:i'...- .•' H ''''-i- 'cT-. ::-,:-:--:.. :.'• :-!-'.1-'..1 I.S, . iV ritr'7 4 I. i.'iiV - ..I
I • , • '„! ., , ..,-.....!..' 1,1,. 0 '. .1,:', 4f.;•• ••,..,-; it.-etir:',.',; ! T.:'-'. l='"' ' ,'..•'=# •.,',-• „:. . ,
33
,'' jar
t
« J, X y
hsT__�x�� fat :::;••• 'f7 , gg s.z
1
9Y € Vii', yy w Av. .
,P..k,0�. pp F • MP !,g.4.- ..!'•
Ki I
✓ '.R� ..,... if (`($ T +M '{ d
l 7I ,
,,ww
:!44 ;k4 `.1r: „y IL
lit in
r x,'v v ),,H----1 egg
z •• ' . IVY
d rti .al"i.- ''...1.'c••,.. , , rr•9 F •" ,
R y .. i
" ;FF rxr'� �� 7
i
a.
'" r -w • ('�tirt z p
,-8
F
+ il, w— !,, co-t 0'6; w' $ 1iA s
�iaYl1 t V1:i11
LL W
4fi p ° ' t' IE I
' p -yam-`• y..P, ,,,, ,,is a , -. ,„,:,4;„
. ..
' . , ..
„„„ , oir „„„:„:„„..„.... „.„„„„,„..,,,,,,.;.:.„,„„. .. •,.„.,,„,.. ;::_•,.. :•• , ;.„.„
,,,.;„, . „:„,„,„„,„,„„„..„,„,,..,. , ,.. „ .„-,-,,,..,„„.„,„„„.„ „„•,,,. .,,, ,..• ..:;„:,„„k„....„,,,, ,„:„ :, „„,•:: ,... �,,.��
: ... „.„ ,
. .•.,
" m 3
, • „:„:„...„,....„.„,„„„„,„.„,„,„0 ,.. • „ .."-rt,r•:-! . b;.'#.4';471r ';.'..I,, L: .7—',,,,- ,,-, .„..4..., ,„.4,,.. . .......,,,,
,,
� C
v
IIIg P ; 4 �g
•
-!', .j.-•-;:iT''''':. ' 1 '''''
MI
�:
"IIVX 4 .„,
,
- � r § w �I§d h g
4
• ' ',,...1! .1 ,''.fi,,,:::['.lip{" • {(p,��. a f
II g�
�„ w-e.
N ,.
w �
3
1 • 1,'P l„,:.,-; :4-1.14k
t k-1 - 4" .
.i�k,H'III)
1477
gY g h y`"§I)y ! lilt_
5! $'
ypI
"l '�.
r$P � 8 yyz �y., t . — '
type. Although the numbers of all aircraft operations are expected to increase over the planning
period,the use of quieter jet engines would offset any increase in noise contour size. Figure 4-3
depicts the anticipated noise impacts in the year 2015.
The number of operations for each aircraft type modelled by the INM are shown in Table 4-1 for
the three analysis years. The annual average day operations were computed from the forecast
annual operations divided by 365 days per year.
The INM allows the user to select aircraft from the model's database. The following aircraft were
used to model the noise contours presented in this EA:
INM Aircraft Description
COMSEP 1985 Single Engine Propeller
BEC58P Beechcraft Baron Twin Engine
Propeller
CNA441 Cessna 441 Conquest Twin Engine
Turboprop
Lear 35 Learjet 35
Gulfstream IV Grumman Gulfstream IV
The 65 Ldn level is the guideline used by the FM (Order 5050.4A, page 30) to determine
compatible land use around airports. FAA's threshold of significance has been determined to
be a 1.5 Ldn increase in noise over any noise sensitive area located with the 65 Ldn contour.
This threshold would not be reached as a result of the proposed expansion. Noise levels of
65 Ldn or greater are generally on or very near land within the current or future Airport boundary;
consequently, the majority of noise impacts would occur on Airport property. The off-Airport
areas impacted are currently zoned for land uses which would be compatible with Greeley-Weld
County Airport operations (e.g., agriculture). There are no schools, hospitals, or other
noise-sensitive receptors near the Airport, so no significant noise impacts would occur to such
structures.
Under the Take No Action alternative, no changes to the current noise levels in the vicinity of the
Airport would occur.
3797ms-3oo 4-8 November 1994
EN ilt:
lir1/,r, o I 1 1 0 s cry I 1 1 g I I I gi
4 14 314
am
g I I I I I I
I 1 I w gG a
01 "
m Npm) pp N W.
O N - :N �
3 it
a a W N r i7 w O11N" m r1
COCV 11
ig
3 IC
3 C
mm
ww .8" t * — 043cc
al 11
0 w c W a a n
IT .s a. �+ 8 " " W c w a
-co Zee
A 1 I I d 3 CO
im i-
ce I
lc
a Y I I t I`..cc
y a) I-
um
e
co 1 t r a I I I
V •-
i
rX I I I $ $¢
C m¢
►-
im
n N " A
C1N N �- •- -Of i'
aq m N N m� N
g r wT
►._ €N N
Y.. ^ - J go
gix
ea,
W N •- a _fir ' Q N"
f� YOa ^ C•2C
i- N
le c73 co Nr .0-
AC e.ilr
N W V F?.
M
we ;�
E
0
0
r
a. d .- 8 CO e 0.�W w a 6g =E W FR 3a 82
4-9
Belt
4.3 Compatible Land Use
Existing land use around Greeley-Weld County Airport is compatible with the proposed Airport
expansion. Land uses to the north of the Airport include scattered residences, farming, and oil
and gas wells; to the south is the Cache La Poudre and South Platte Rivers, open pasture,
scattered residences, manufacturing, and auto salvage; to the west is scattered residences,
farming, and oil and gas wells; and to the east is scattered residences;farming, and oil and gas
wells. Weld County and the City of Greeley guide land use development around Greeley-Weld
County Airport through the implementation of adopted plans, policies, zoning ordinances, and
regulations. Weld County and the City of Greeley recognize the need for compatible land use
around the Airport and will continue to protect these lands from incompatible uses.
The proposed Airport expansion would require the acquisition of approximately 350 acres of
land. Most of this land is currently used for agriculture. There are nine existing oil and gas wells
on the proposed expansion area. The Greeley-Weld County Airport Authority would need to
adequately compensate the operators of the wells and the mineral rights owners/lessees who
may be financially impacted by the proposed development. Mineral rights owners/lessees do
have a right to capture their minerals.
The flight tracks of aircraft using Greeley-Weld County Airport would overfly areas near the Airport
and noise impacts would be experienced in such areas. However, since noise levels of 65 Ldn
and greater are on or very near land within the current or future Airport boundary, the majority
of noise impacts would occur on Airport property. No dwelling unit relocations would be
required; however, two relocations are being considered after discussions with the landowners
and FAA because of the close proximity of the residences to the year 2015 65 Ldn noise contour
(see Figure 4-3).
Both the City of Greeley and Weld County are aware of the need for Airport expansion. The
proposed expansion has been approved by the Greeley City Council and the Board of Weld
County Commissioners. Reviews of land use and applications for development in the vicinity
of the Airport is a shared responsibility of the City and County. Both the City of Greeley and
Weld County have planning functions. Regulations pertaining to planning, zoning, subdividing
and building code enforcement have been established in both the City and the County. Airport
planning efforts are accomplished through interagency cooperation between the City and County.
The first City Comprehensive Plan was adopted by Greeley in 1971. The 1980 Airport Master
Plan served as a reference in guiding the City Planning Department in developing land use
compatibility for areas surrounding the Airport. The City of Greeley has adopted zoning which
pertains to: noise, maintaining runway critical areas that are free of any residential use, and
3797-006-300 4-10 November 1994
eat
ensuring the Airport Influence Area includes only those land uses that are not sensitive to the
noise generated by aircraft in the approach/departure pattern.
With the proposed construction of the new northwest-southeast runway complex,existing zoning
resolutions would need to be amended. The City and County have conceptually acknowledged
those needed changes based upon final acceptance of the 1994 Airport Master Plan Update
Study Summary Report. Appendix B shows the new Land Use Plan developed as part of the
1994 Airport Master Plan Update Study Summary Report. This configuration would eliminate a
large majority of overflights of Greeley.
The current Weld County Comprehensive Plan was adopted on March 24, 1992. One of the
county's transportation policies states, in part,that the County will "adopt appropriate provisions
to protect public airports from incompatible structures and uses." These provisions would be
consistent with FM guidelines.
Airport site development and operations compatibility between the Airport and adjacent land uses
are important land use planning and zoning issues. Residential developments and other noise
sensitive uses have traditionally caused conflicts with established activities at most airports.
Also, structures and uses can pose a hazard to aircraft. To avoid this problem,Weld County has
adopted an Airport Overlay District which created and established certain zones which include
all of the land lying beneath the approach surfaces as they apply to the Airport. This ordinance
limits the height of obstructions which may affect aircraft safety while on approach or departure
from Greeley-Weld County Airport.
The County's Airport Overlay District is currently being amended to include the new
approach/departure routes of the proposed runway configuration. The amendment would be
finalized after the EA is completed (Daniels-Mika 1994). To amend the ordinance, the Planning
Commission must first recommend the action to the County Commissioners for approval. Upon
that recommendation,the County Commissioners must approve the amendment before adoption
by the County Planning Department. In addition to the zoning amendment,the Airport's Planned
Unit Development (PUD) Plan also would need to be amended (Schuett 1994).
Under the Take No Action alternative, Weld County and the City of Greeley would continue to
protect the lands around the Airport from incompatible uses. However, the Take No Action
alternative would not meet the purpose and need of the Airport Sponsor.
3797-006-300 4-11 _ November 1994
EMIR
4.4 Social Impacts
4.4.1 Land Acquisition and Residential Relocations
To accommodate the proposed Airport improvements, protect the airfield approaches, and to
provide a buffer zone from future encroachment of incompatible land uses, approximately
350 acres of land to the north of the existing Airport property would have to be acquired. No
dwelling unit relocations would be required; however, two potential relocations are being
considered after discussions with the landowners and FAA because of the close proximity of the
residences to the year 2015 65 Ldn noise contour (see Figure 4-3). Figure 4-4 shows the parcels
of land to be acquired.
The Airport Sponsor is conversant with and will follow the Federal Uniform Relocation and
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended for acquiring land.
There would be no division or disruption of other established communities or planned
development in the area. The acquisition of land would follow all Federal guidelines. In
anticipation of beginning the appraisal process, members of the Airport Authority have been
meeting with the impacted landowners to make them aware of the project, the proposed
schedule, and Federal land acquisition requirements (see Table 4-2).
Oil and gas exploration is permitted on each 40 acre tract in the area of the new runway.
Approximately six existing wells and one proposed well would be effected. Actions to mitigate
these wells would be developed by consulting the appropriate mineral rights owners/lessees and
mineral management agencies.
Under the Take No Action alternative, no additional lands would be acquired.
4.4.2 Economic Impacts
The Proposed Action would provide a short-term stimulation to the local economy in the form
of construction-related activities (employment, material and service sales). Increased aircraft
activity would 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 to keep the Airport self supporting and help to support the economic
base of the whole community.
3797-000-300 4-12 November 7984
R. , a0
_ I a
r
I it g ii_ Q
z� j
�� '.'•.§Pxag' gig'4, wt '''IW€ g ' lilt lig t P
Q 1 I I � z'7gg I ' 1 x SQ
g33 $ 4 9f II I � \ ( e� d I tl
II I I ' c�3 Il : u 1
fff
z _ -71
fli
e o� d oi
IS I 0bo�
;��«14.,- g $ g to o
�� oil le � .... � - - - - — ,3
5
W
I§ -' ! ''101"-.C47 7.. i :ii,,, , ip
�,� �7ii g
.,. "'''........ „-• ,-..,,„.1,1t4j0whiii,-„, illikii,„14.. sci,440 il
7 I- i
I '' 'i g
,
,� m„
}V,A,Wn
ia
"jay E f n
� p
I e
z f_,,
ax
y ;
ilt,yy
. ,,, '' rli
II
II
O.1
V6' t ':
ao l'' p
1°'1, 41 4,, a 6 1
4
rIs V
V., V
bid li Jwi' 7 )m n.. 2 al r
3 U<14 b --1N`.. e w 1
Qt) , W,! i 1
I as __pa
Qv ■ 1 .
_
J IN
■
I n {q
k "
1
\a 'I j
z Vii'y ron E
i
3}f -1 Nn f E o • &
i55 .43 33 '� d #14.1,05 ,04i
'''''4,0i.. if...,
\
�, C�°$ t. F._ do N
i F
Nd ___ . J z
1. P4,pIX $p� ell;
- - j W,. .
W
_ ,.o ,._,; WAR va I w aFr r
via
& —V'.. ,‘,..!.1 VIE' III a
§N;
e 11
.. !k `off ib at �a
K
Il s..
"'
Table 4-2
Schedule of Meetings With Landowners for the
Greeley-Weld County Airport Project
Parcel Landowner Date of Meeting
19 Duane & Dorothy Zabka October 6, 1994
20 Meryl J. & Gladys H. Coulson October 17, 1994
21 Byers C. & Charlotte J. Clark September 27, 1994
22 Lyster Family Farms Several attempts have been made by the Airport
Authority to schedule a meeting with this
landowner. A meeting will be held as soon as
possible.
23 Natural Gas Association Inc. October 25, 1994
24 Wayne A. & Kris A. Howard October 7, 1994
25 R.S.W. Farms Inc. Several attempts have been made by the Airport
Authority to schedule a meeting with this
landowner. A meeting will be held as soon as
possible.
26 Noffsinger Manufacturing October 18, 1994
Company, Inc.
27 State Board of Agriculture October 18, 1994
U.S. Experimental Potato
Station
28 Charles L. Warren October 25, 1994
Investments Company
29 Denig Anne Warren Trust October 25, 1994
4-14
DM
Economic activity related to the Airport would remain at current levels under the Take No Action
alternative.
4.4.3 Transportation and Ground Access
The Transportation component of the 1992 Weld County Comprehensive Plan identifies the
location of roadway corridors and describes the functional classification of the existing and
proposed roadway system within the County. Major north-south corridors in the vicinity of
Greeley-Weld County Airport, as depicted on the current Transportation Plan, include
Highway 85, located approximately 2.5 miles west of the Airport, and County Road 43, located
approximately 1.5 miles west of the Airport. According to the Transportation Plan, Highway 85
is classified as a Principal Arterial, and County Road 43 is classified as a County Arterial. The
major function of Highway 85 and other Principal Arterials is to move relatively large volumes of
traffic in an efficient manner, and to discourage direct access to abutting lands. The major
function of County Road 43 and other County Arterials, as described in the Transportation Plan,
is to maximize traffic flow and promote safety, and minimize the number of access points (Weld
County Comprehensive Plan 1992). The proposed expansion of Greeley-Weld County Airport
would not after the north-south surface transportation pattern for Highway 85 and County
Road 43, or any other major north-south roadways depicted in the Transportation Plan.
Major east-west corridors in the vicinity of Greeley-Weld County Airport, as depicted on the
current Transportation Plan, include Highway 263, located just south of the Airport, and
Highway 392,located approximately 3 miles north of the Airport. According to the Transportation
Plan, both highways are classified as Minor Arterials. The major function of these two roads and
other Minor Arterials, as described in the Transportation Plan, is to accommodate high speed
travel by restricting access and reducing interference to through movements (Weld County
Comprehensive Plan 1992). The proposed expansion of Greeley-Weld County Airport would not
after the east-west surface transportation patterns of Highway 263 and Highway 392,or any other
major east-west roadways depicted in the Transportation Plan.
The other roadways in the vicinity of the Airport, including north-south County Roads 45 and 47,
and east-west County Roads 62, 64, 64 1/2, and 66, are classified on the Transportation Plan
as County Local Roads. According to the Plan, local county roads are designed for low speed
and low traffic volumes. They provide the first access link between individual properties and the
higher mobility highway system (Weld County Comprehensive Plan 1992). The proposed project
would not alter the surface transportation pattern for County Roads 45, 47, and 66. The
proposed expansion of Greeley-Weld County Airport would require closing, relocating, or
3797-006-300 4-15 November 1994
Oat
bridging a portion of County Road 62, and closing or relocating portions of County Roads 64
and 64 1/2.
The Weld County Public Works Department conducted a 12-hour traffic count on September 7,
1994, between the hours of 6 am and 6 pm on County Roads 62, 45, and 47 in the vicinity of
the Airport (see Figure 4-5). Based on this traffic count,the Public Works Department concluded
that 345 vehicles utilized County Road 62 (Bliss Road) at the approximate location where the
proposed runway would intersect the road. They also concluded that 400 vehicles per day utilize
County Road 62 east of County Road 45. From these numbers, it seems apparent that traffic
traveling on County Road 45 travels to and from the Greeley area on County Road 62. The Weld
County Public Works Department concluded that these relatively low traffic counts do not appear
to be sufficient to justify installation of a tunnel along County Road 62 at the location where the
proposed runway would intersect the road (Cicoff 1994).
In addition, the Public Works Department determined that a tunnel at this location would create
other problems and associated costs that may not yet be fully identified and understood. In
particular,the Public Works Department was concerned about the construction and maintenance
costs of providing a drainage system for any stormwater that would collect in the tunnel. The
Public Works Department recommends that a tunnel not be constructed (Cicoff 1994).
The Weld County Public Works Department recommended the following widening, paving,
and/or resurfacing mitigation measures to avoid significant disruption of surface transportation
patterns (Cicoff 1994):
1. The proposed runway would eliminate portions of County Roads 62, 64, and 64 1/2.
A cul-de-sac capable of accommodating semi-trailers should be constructed at each
terminus of the roads severed by the runway construction. A right-of-way diameter of
150 feet with a gravel surface 100 feet in diameter with appropriate flared approaches
should be sufficient to accommodate road maintenance equipment.
2. The paving and/or resurfacing of the following roads should be provided as a part of
the Airport project to accommodate the traffic detoured from the roads to be closed:
a) County Road 47 from State Highway 263 north to County Road 66;
b) County Road 66 from County Road 45 to County Road 47; and
c) County Road 45 from County Road 64 to County Road 66 (see Figure 4-5).
3797-006-3oo 4-16 November 1894
1, a I. . fir u , AM 96R 1427av
M 972[ k
{ a Colorado Hwy.39;-
•O•
V • i `WeII 1 co / 9 0 'II
W O 2 •O
tO . _ __ 2 ., m �7 m it
Weil Q 22 ' r «r23 - a2N�y 313� ,, Darli R° p County 4zd .•U •:� vim/
it ..ETON • rF• -rte s . .
n •I� \432 . �
1 "VD.i J ... Wel 2 aToo
I ,
1432 �i • i 1 I
4699 , ount]I - '4'!x --- I >5 1 30 1t2
Y Well / \ 27 Well -.,----/ Cloverly
I„ — I
MOODY P rant Valley -/ ter Bro n
I�• eirCrh • 61_ 4 BROAD jl T_
r;II. - /County Road 64—�—.I —. '�Lc
E/A>� 34 • 35 36 IC
• -�� Well _. A
P
> � 5ANVALLEY
I f, . V A L E EIY 46/6 County 6 Ys
46<s r 3} /
/ I a-n•{ 4s, _ �-,...,. .... ,BL`SS., •
4c6a .1‘
.. y . ROA ! County Road 6 r - ��
• •> \ ' �I. I'\61 'AMUCOUNTY 206 31 i '°&1� I
s, 346 1
.i+.!' e l �N�CIPN2 AIRPORT' X610.-. -Wx,Grs P[ r.
J
I rad
d I�. 3
td 7
l
632
7,� i1 M ,/ C I4 9 �1 ,..t I , SCoLlt
P /tl �i,:.1 ° -- arcH �. Islena
- t L. �,ti,
f�
The '
p
_.. 4643 J...... .+ )IL
nd
3d I \ /4c6 46
w'. :7 I / l G� y /4
Li 5� Gravel
I •It).07?—I .-4646. X Pits
15 - 46/].1•� t�:r��cY1 •
/ •1.3 1),8
• 4
r
�y
Ch h r 6 U'
II
F / - / ✓ - z • IIG633 . (`ilaVOl Pits
I` • • I /
e ®-Average Daily Traffic (ADT)counted by Weld County
Public Works Department on September 7, 1994.
0 -Portions of County Roads to be widened and paved
— Emu — -Existing paved roads
miles
-Gravel roads
Figure 4-5. Ground Transportation Network in the Vicinity
of the Greeley - Weld County Airport
3. The current traffic counts for County Roads 45 and 47 indicate appropriate turning lanes
may be warranted. If so justified,the appropriate provisions should be made in theroad
improvement designs to accommodate the vehicles making the turning movements.
The proposed roadway widening and paving would: 1) provide more environmentally acceptable
perimeter roads by reducing existing dust impacts from vehicles using unpaved surfaces;
2) minimize inconvenience and improve safety for users by allowing a wider road surface for
passage of slower moving traffic; and 3) improve safety for all vehicle traffic by eliminating
obstructed sight distances caused by dust.
A preliminary cost estimate for implementing the mitigation measures outlined above (i.e.,
widening and paving approximately 4.7 miles of existing County Roads) would be approximately
$705,000 ($150,000 per mile), compared to approximately$2.9 million for constructing a tunnel
for Bliss Road under the proposed runway (Isbill Associates, Inc. 1994).
The major surface transportation route in the vicinity of Greeley-Weld County Airport is State
Highway 263, which is located south of the Airport. According to the Colorado Department of
Transportation (CDOT), the 1992 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for the segment of Highway 263
near the Airport was approximately 3,000. A 20-year projection of traffic to the year 2112 yields
4,500 ADT (Crier 1994). The expected increase in aviation activity at Greeley-Weld County
Airport would result in an increase to surface vehicle traffic on State Highway 263 near the
Airport; however, the increase in surface traffic is not expected to exceed CDOT's 20-year
projection. The threshold for the proposed runway would be designed, as reflected on the
Airport Layout Plan,to provide adequate safety areas and approach clearance over the highway.
Spacing for the Medium Intensity Approach Ughts with Runway Alignment Indicator Ughts
(MALSR) would be taken into account to straddle the highway right-of-way.
The closure of portions of any County roads would require approval from the Board of 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 any County roads 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.
Under the Take No Action alternative, there would be no effect to the surface transportation
network in the vicinity of the Airport.
3797-006-300 4-18 November 1994
Etat
4.5 Induced Socioeconomic Impacts
Both the "Take No Action'alternative and the Proposed Action are not expected to substantially
alter the population growth of the City of Greeley or Weld County. In addition, the Take No
Action alternative would not offer the beneficial effects of increased employment opportunities
and increased tax revenue generation.
The overall socioeconomic impact caused by continued development of Greeley-Weld County
Airport should be beneficial in that it would 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. Additionally, due to the increase in capability and
accessibility attributed to continued development, it is expected that there would be an increase
in the potential to attract new aviation-oriented businesses to the community, as well as
corporations with flight departments that may base at the Airport.
4.5.1 Economic Impacts
As the Airport is developed, it should bring a steady increase in employment and aviation activity
which would be considered a benefit to the local economy since the increased activity would
enhance economic growth throughout the local area. 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.
4.5.2 Population
It is likely that some population growth would be experienced as a result of the proposed
expansion, however, it is not expected to be substantial. 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 to be 67,000, with a year 2000 projection of approximately 82,000.
3797-006400 4-19 November 199'1
•
4.5.3 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.
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. 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 labor and
education/service employment.
No significant adverse effects to public facilities and services are anticipated from the proposed
expansion of Greeley-Weld County Airport. Existing infrastructure and community facilities
present the City of Greeley with advantages in terms of future development. Greeley-Weld
County Airport provides the City and County with convenient access to general aviation facilities,
particularly business aviation. These advantages, combined with readily available utilities,
municipal services and an improving mix of basic industries give Greeley the ability to attract
development which would generate net revenue to the City and Weld County and provide
year-round employment opportunities.
4.6 Air Quality and Climatology
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). Since aviation forecasts
for Greeley-Weld County Airport are above 180,000 operations per year, an air quality analysis
has been prepared. The analysis consists of an emissions inventory and screening modeling
analysis. Air quality and climatology are summarized in this section while detailed emissions
inventory and modeling information are provided in Appendix E.
3797-006-300 4-20 November 1994
B
4.6.1 Air Quality
The region surrounding Greeley can be described as rural with an emphasis on agricultural land
use. Existing air quality in the region is generally good; however, the City of Greeley has been
designated a nonattainment area for carbon monoxide (CO). No violations of the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the other pollutants have been recorded in Greeley
or the surrounding area.
Air quality In the region can be impacted by two phenomena. Wind storms along the Front
Range of the Rocky Mountains are fairly common during certain periods of the year. Such
storms can reduce air quality by increasing particulate concentrations in the atmosphere due to
wind erosion from tilled soil. Also, diurnal winds along the South Platte Valley may adversely
affect the air quality in the region through transport of pollutants originating in Denver. On
numerous occasions, the Denver "brown cloud" has been traced along the South Platte into
Weld County.
The emissions inventories for various years of operation at Greeley-Weld County Airport are
provided in Table 4-3. The emissions estimates account for emissions from aircraft, ground
support equipment, airport related automobile traffic, and airport fuel storage. It is evident that
emissions are predicted to increase throughout the 20-year forecast period. The emission rate
for most pollutants is quite small, particularly in comparison to a typical industrial facility.
However, since emissions increase by between 60 and 80 percent during the forecast period,
a screening modeling analysis was conducted.
A conservative screening modeling analysis was conducted to determine ambient pollutant
concentrations that could be expected during the year 2015. The analysis utilized conservative
meteorological conditions (wind speed equal to 1 m/s and F stability class) and receptors placed
at the ends of each runway and at the site of the proposed new terminal. Maximum model
predicted results are presented in Table 4-4. The 1-hour concentrations predicted by the model
were extrapolated to 3-hour, 8-hour, 24-hour and annual averaging period concentrations using
multipliers of 0.9, 0.7, 0.4 and 0.1, respectively. It is evident that the predicted concentrations
amount to only a small fraction of the associated NAAQS.
Since Greeley is nonattainment for CO, the predicted CO concentrations can be compared to
the significance levels identified under New Source Review(NSR) requirements. The significance
levels are 2,000 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) for 1-hour averaging times and 500 ug/m3
for 8-hour averaging times. The predicted CO concentrations do not exceed these levels.
However, it is important to note that the Airport is not actually located within the boundaries of
__ 3797-096300 4-21 November 1994
Table 4-3
Greeley-Weld County Airport
Annual Emissions Estimates
(tons per year)'
Year ! CO HC NOx SO2 PM
1994
� 816.96 28.17 4.99 ' 0.36 0.05
2000 924.78 33.74 5.72 0.41 0.06
2005 1028.08 36.18 6.04 0.44 0.06
2015 1333.70 47.41 8.49 0.64 0.09
4-22
Table 4-4
Greeley-Weld County Airport
Modeling Results
(ug/m3)
Pollutant Averaging Time Concentration NAAQS
CO 1-Hour 557.00 40,000
8-Hour 389.90 10,000
HC 1-Hour 75.70 n/a
NO, Annual 0.72 100
SO2 3-Hour 0.97 1,300
24-Hour 0.43 365
Annual 0.11 80
PM 24-Hour <0.01 150
Annual <0.01 50
4-23
the nonattainment area and that the City of Greeley is currently initiating procedures so that the
City can be redesignated to attainment status (McLane 1994).
The nearest Class I area is Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP) which is located
approximately 45 miles to the west of the Airport. Maximum model predicted pollutant
concentrations near the Airport are below the Class I area increments and significance levels for
NSR requirements. Pollutant dispersion during transport would greatly reduce ambient
concentrations once emissions reached RMNP and, therefore, are not expected to negatively
impact air quality there.
In conclusion, it appears that air quality in the area can be far more significantly influenced by
_ existing sources (i.e., airborne dust from wind erosion) than by emissions from the Airport. The
possibility of violating any standard as a result of aircraft activity seems remote. Measures would
be developed to control potential dust emissions during construction. Water trucks and
revegetation programs would be actively pursued.
4.6.2 Climatology
The mild climate of the region, characterized by abundant sunshine, results in instrument
approach conditions only 4.1 percent of the time. Occasional heavy winter snow storms or
periods of low lying fog require the Airport's closing 0.7 percent of the year. Temperatures range
between an average of 23.8° F in January to 74.8° F during July. Periodic extremes find
temperatures falling near zero a few days each winter and summer hot spells in the 90's, lasting
one to two weeks. A mean maximum temperature in July of 91.1° F and runway elevation of
4,646 feet above mean sea level place limitations on certain executive aircraft, particularly during
warm summer months. In the Greeley area, light winds (7 mph) blow from the NW and SE
quadrant 77 percent of the time and from the SW - NE quadrant 22 percent of the time.
Periodic wind storms and slightly increased runway length requirements (due to the
elevation/density effect on aircraft lift) are the major climatological limitations on the Airport.
4.7 Water Quality
The principal hydrologic impacts of the proposed expansion would be the temporary creation
of unstable soils that could be eroded into the Cache la Poudre River, located approximately
0.6 mile southeast of the Airport. This condition would be minimized by prompt revegetation and
maintenance. Other potential pollution could come from petroleum products spilled on the
surface and carried to the river after heavy rainfalls. However,this potential would be controlled
with prompt cleanup of potential spills, plus a well-designed, vegetated drainage system. These
3797-006300 4-24 November 1994
Dint
controls also would help protect the shallow aquifer that underlies the Airport grounds. The
recommended drainage study and proper detailed design would compensate and provide
compatible facilities.
Construction of the proposed runway would require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges from Construction Sites. The EPA
has determined that construction activities (including clearing, grading,and excavation activities)
that result in the disturbance of five or more acres of total land area are subject to these permit
requirements. These permits also require preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
which focuses on identifying and implementing appropriate measures to reduce pollutants in
storm water discharges to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of these permits.
Greeley-Weld County Airport would apply for all necessary permits and would comply with all
permit requirements.
Operation of the proposed runway also would require an NPDES permit and the development
of a site-specific Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP). The State of Colorado, through the
Department of Health, has been delegated responsibility by the EPA to administer its own permit
system. This is called the Colorado Discharge Permit System (CDPS) which is the state's
counterpart of the NPDES permit system. The purpose of the SWMP is to "identify possible
pollutant sources to stormwater and to set out best management practices that, when
implemented,will reduce or eliminate any possible water quality impacts." Therefore,the SWMP
is a comprehensive plan that describes materials and activities at the Airport, and stormwater
quality protection measures both in existence and to be implemented. In addition, the permit
requires implementation of the SWMP.
Airports with any type of industrial activity are classified as industrial sites and must therefore
comply with the CDPS regulations which require a permit application and a SWMP. Airport
industrial activities include aircraft maintenance, refueling, etc. Therefore,the areas where these
activities take place are covered by the permit. Greeley-Weld County Airport would apply for all
necessary permits and would comply with all permit requirements.
All existing water rights, water permits, on the land to be acquired for the proposed expansion
would be protected. Existing irrigation facilities (i.e., ditches, diversion structures) would be
modified, as necessary, to maintain existing irrigation practices.
If the Take No Action alternative is elected, no new impact on water quality would be expected
due to no increase in sanitary or industrial wastewater and no additional paved areas to create
additional runoff.
7797-006900 4-25 November 1994
Etat
4.8 Department of Transportation (DOT) Act, Section 4(f)
Section 4(f) provides that the Secretary shall not approve any program or project that requires
the use of any publicly-owned land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl
refuge of National, State, or Local significance, or land from an historic site of National, State or
Local significance as determined by the officials having jurisdiction thereof, unless there is no
feasible and prudent alternative to the use of such land, and such program or project includes
all possible planning to minimize harm resulting from the use.
The Proposed Action and the Take No Action alternative would cause no conflict with Section
4(f) of the United States Department of Transportation Act since none of the lands to be acquired
fall into any of the applicable categories covered by the Act.
4.9 Historical, Architectural, Archeological, and Cultural Resources
A cultural resources Class I (file search) study of the proposed Airport expansion area was
completed during August 1994 to identify and summarize the existing knowledge of the cultural
resources recorded in or near the project area to support preparation of this EA. Based on the
findings of the Class I study, recommendations can be made for further work to be undertaken
at the project area for compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as
amended, and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Cultural resources file data are
recorded by township, range, and section of land (640 acres per section); consequently, the
Class I study encompasses more acreage than the specific proposed expansion area. The
investigations examined approximately 1,920 acres at the Class I level. The subsequent Class
III (intensive pedestrian survey) study will only examine the 350 acres proposed for acquisition
to accommodate the Airport expansion.
There are four known surveys in the Class I area, three of which were done for past proposed
expansions of the Airport. These surveys date from 1979 through 1990. Six historic sites and
four isolated finds have been recorded in the three sections of land which encompass the project
area. However, no sites or isolates have been recorded in the project area proper. The
expansion area has not been inventoried, except for a linear survey which followed the now
abandoned Union Pacific Railroad Cloverly spur, and a survey from 1980 that included all of
Section 2, but that did not report any findings.
As would be expected, the historic sites are directly tied to farming in the area. Only one of the
sites, the Lyster Farm (5WL1528), has been determined officially eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places by the Colorado SHPO. The Lyster Farm lies to the east of
the current project area, and would not be directly impacted by the proposed project. Of the
3797-006-300 4-26
November 1994
remaining five sites,three have been determined officially not eligible for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places by the Colorado SHPO. The other two sites have been
recommended as field not eligible. The four isolated finds have been found to be not eligible.
Presently,a Class Ill survey of the project area is planned to be conducted during the fall of 1994
after the crops have been harvested to increase ground visibility. That survey will be completed
and all resources evaluated and, if needed, treated prior to the commencement of ground
disturbing activity associated with the proposed expansion of the Airport.
4.10 Biotic Communities
Information regarding vegetation, wildlife species, and wildlife habitat present within the project
area was primarily obtained from existing documents or reports applicable to the general vicinity
of the project area, and written and verbal correspondence with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) and Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) personnel. Additional information was
obtained via the review of aerial photographs and conducting a field reconnaissance within the
project area on August 4, 1994.
4.10.1 Vegetation
Vegetation present within the project area primarily consists of agricultural crops which include
corn, sugar beets, beans, carrots, and onions. These crops are grown in cultivated fields that
are irrigated via irrigation ditches and canals. Small, non-cultivated areas support ruderal and
wetland plant species. Common ruderal species present in these areas include Russian thistle
(Salsola iberica), kochia (Kochia scoparia), gumweed (Grindelia squarosa), common sunflower
(Helianthus annuus), barnyard grass (Echinochloa crus-galli), and Canada thistle (Cirsium
arvense). Plant species present along the margins of irrigation ditches and ponds include
galingale(Cyperus sp.),sedges (Carex spp.),saltgrass(Distichlisspicata), spikerush (Eleocharis
sp.), and curly dock (Rumex crispus). Twelve green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) trees occur
in the project area and are established along the south side of County Road 64 between
Sections 26 and 35. Other plant species that are associated with the green ash trees include
Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), smooth bromegrass (Bromus inermis), and quackgrass
(Agropyron repens).
Approximately 263 acres of cultivated cropland, or 75 percent of the acquisition area would be
permanently removed from crop production as a result of the runway construction. The
remainder of the project area (approximately 87 acres) would be temporarily disturbed during
construction activities, but could be utilized as cultivated cropland during runway operation. All
3797-006-300 4-27 November 1994
Dint
12 of the green ash trees would be removed during runway construction. Impacts to wetlands
and special status species are addressed in Sections 4.12 and 4.11, respectively.
4.10.2 Wildlife
Wildlife habitat present within the project area primarily consists of cultivated cropland intersected
by narrow bands of terrestrial vegetation or wetland species associated with irrigation ditches.
The value of the wildlife habitat is considered fair based on the lack of tree and shrub species
that are commonly utilized by wildlife for shelter and the prevalence of wildlife food (crops)
available for a variety of species.
Species that utilize the cultivated cropland and limited natural areas located within the project
area include mule deer(Odocoileus hemionus),whitetail deer (Odocoileus virginianus), raccoon
(Procyon lotor),striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis),coyote (Canis latrans), red fox(Vulpes vulpes),
badger (Taxidea taxus), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), and various small mammals,
reptiles, raptors, and songbirds (Isbill Associates, Inc. 1990). According to the species list
developed by the CDOW, cropland located in the general vicinity of the project area may be
used as breeding habitat for 8 mammal, 15 bird, and 6 reptile species (CDOW 1993). Good
wildlife habitat located within the general vicinity of the project area includes Darling Reservoir
(approximately 0.4 mile northeast of the project area), Cache La Poudre River (approximately 0.6
mile southeast of the project area), and the South Platte River (approximately 1.2 miles southeast
of the project area). Riparian areas associated with the Cache La Poudre and South Platte
Rivers provide valuable wildlife habitat throughout the year; these areas also serve as important
wintering areas for various waterfowl species and a small number of bald and golden eagles.
Darling Reservoir also provides water,food, and cover for various wildlife species throughout the
year. These areas are outside the project area and would not be impacted by the proposed
expansion.
Construction of the runway would remove 263 acres of cropland from production. The loss of
263 acres of cropland would not be significant since cropland does not provide good cover for
wildlife. In addition, the potential loss of wildlife food resulting from the removal of cropland
would be minimal since a prevalence of cropland exists in the general vicinity of the project area.
Indirect impacts to wildlife resulting from increased levels of airplane traffic and noise would be
minimal. Significant impacts to wildlife species are not anticipated as a result of runway
operation. Mitigation measures have not been proposed since significant impacts to wildlife
species are not anticipated.
3797-00&300 4-28 November 1994
EICR
4.11 Endangered and Threatened Species
Information regarding special status species (i.e., federally-listed, proposed, federal candidate,
and state sensitive species) that occur or potentially occur in the project area was obtained from
the USFWS and the Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP)(USFWS 1994; CNHP 1994).
According to information obtained from the USFWS and CNHP potential habitat may occur within
the project area for 18 special status species (Table 4-5).
Based on the following review of habitat descriptions for each of the species identified by the
USFWS and CNHP, the project area does not contain potential habitat for 16 of the 18 special
status species listed. Two species,the Preble's meadow jumping mouse and loggerhead shrike,
may occur in the project area. However, the potential for occurrence of these species in the
project area would be low. Both of these species are Federal candidate Category 2 species and
are not protected by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Therefore, surveys for
these species within the project area would not be required.
The black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) is Federally-listed as an endangered species and is
also listed as a state endangered species (USFWS 1993;CDOW 1993). Prairie dog colonies are
the black-footed ferret's key habitat. The historic distribution of the black-footed ferret in North
America and in Colorado coincided closely with that of the prairie dog. The project area does
not include rangeland or prairie dog colonies; therefore, impacts to the black-footed ferret are
not anticipated as a result of construction or operation activities.
The swift fox (Vulpes velox) is a species that has been proposed for listing as endangered by the
USFWS (USFWS 1994). Habitat for the swift fox typically includes open deserts and grasslands.
This species may use cultivated cropland as foraging areas, but typically would not utilize
cultivated croplands as denning areas. Since open grasslands are not located in the project area
and alternative foraging areas of the same quality are available in the project vicinity, impacts to
swift fox are not anticipated as a result of construction or operation activities.
The Preble's meadow jumping mouse(Zapus hudsonius preble,) is a Federal candidate Category
2 species (USFWS 1991). The Preble's meadow jumping mouse inhabits areas along the
margins of wetlands, ponds, and streams (Armstrong 1993). This species may occur in the
project vicinity. However, it is highly unlikely that Preble's meadow jumping mouse would occur
in the project area since the wetlands in the project area include irrigation ditches and one pond.
The margins of these wetlands support a mixture of wetland and upland vegetation; however,
the extent of this vegetation is limited to the irrigation ditches and the immediate vicinity of the
pond offering little habitat for the mouse.
3797-006-3W 4-29 November 1904
Table 4-5
Special Status Species That Potentially Occur in the Project Area
for the Greeley-Weld County Airport Project
Potential
Federal Habitat Present
Common Status/State Habitat in Project Area
Name Scientific!Nam. Status Requirements (X/N/Maybel
WILDLIFE
Mammals
Black-footed Mustela FE/SE Grassland N
ferret nigripes plains and
mountain
basins generally
in association
with prairie dog
colonies
Swift fox Vulpes velox P/- Open deserts N(Foraging
and grasslands habitat may be
present
although
denning habitat
is not present)
Preble's Zapus C2/- Margins of Maybe
meadow hudsonius wetlands,
jumping mouse preblei ponds, and
streams
Fringed-tail Myotis- C2/- Caves and N
mystis thysanodes attics of
pahasapensis abandoned
buildings
Birds
Bald eagle Haliaeetus FE/ST Reservoirs and N (Bald eagles
leucocephalus rivers use the South
Platte River
floodplain as a
wintering area)
4-30
Table 4-5 (Continued)
Potential
Federal Habitat Present
Common Status/State Habitat in Project Area
Name Scientific Name Status Requirements (Y/N/Maybe)
Whooping Grus americana FE/SE Mudflats around N (Feeding
crane reservoirs, habitat may be
riverine habitats, present;
large wetlands, roosting habitat
and agricultural is not present
areas
Least tern Sterna FE/SE Reservoirs, N
antillarum lakes, and rivers
with bare,
sandy
shorelines
Piping plover Charadrius FT/ST Mudflats and N
melodus shorelines of
reservoirs and
lakes
White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi C2/- Wet meadows, N
marsh edges,
and reservoir
shorelines
Western snowy Charadrius C2/- Alkali flats, N
plover alexandrinus mudfiats, and
nivosus sandy
shorelines
Mountain plover Charadrius C2/- Level areas with N
montanus very short grass
and scattered
cactus
Long-billed Numenius Sc!- Short-grass N
curlew americans grasslands and
sometimes in
wheatfields or
fallow fields
Black tern Chlidonas C2/- Reservoirs, N
niger lakes, and rivers
with bare sandy
shorelines
4-31
Table 4-5 (Continued)
Potential
Federal Habitat Present
Common Status/State Ha3bitat in Project Area
Name semantic Name Status Requirements (Y/N/Maybe)
Ferruginous Buteo regalia C2/- Grasslands and N
hawk semidesert
shrublands
Loggerhead Lanius C2/- Open riparian Maybe
shrike ludovicianus areas,
agricultural
areas,
grasslands, and
shrublands,
especially
semidesert
shrublands
Baird's sparrow Ammodramus C2/- Native N
bairdii grasslands,
rarely uses
grassy areas in
ditches
Fish
Plains Fundulus C2/- Small to N
topminnow sciandicus medium-sized,
clear, sandy to
rocky streams
with moderate
to rapid current
Insect
Regal fritillary Speyeria idalia C2/- Wet meadows N
butterfly and undisturbed
prairie near
wetlands
Mollusk
Cylindrical Anodontoides -/R Large rivers and N
papershell ferussacianus is most
abundant in
shallow areas
4-32
Table 4-5 (Continued)
Potential
Federal Habitat Present
Common Status/State Habitat in Project Area
Name ScientHic Name Statuus Requirements ! (Y/N/Maybe)
PLANTS
Ute ladies'- Spiranthes FT/S1 Areas with N
tresses orchid diluvialis seasonally wet
soils and wet
meadows near
springs, lakes,
or perennial
streams, and
their associated
floodplains
below 6,500
feet elevation
Colorado Gaura C1/S1 Transition zone N
butterfly weed neomexicana between wet
spp. stream bottom
coloradensis and rich
floodplain areas
Showy prairie Eustoma P/- Moist, open N
gentian grandiflorum fields and
meadows
underlain by
sandy alluvial
soils
Dwarf milkweed Asclepias C2/- Dry hills and N
uncialis plains at
elevations of
4,000 to 5,300
feet
4-33
Table 4-5 (Continued)
— Potential
Federal Habitat Present
Common Status/State Habitat #n Project Area
Name ScientttIC Name Status Requirements n/N/M e)
SOURCES:USFWS 1994; USFWS 1993; USFWS 1992a; USFWS 1992b; USFWS 1991; USFWS 1985; CNHP
1994;Andrews and Righter 1992; CLAPS 1989; CDOW 1993; Armstrong 1993; Pennak 1989; CNAI 1991.
- Federal Status:
FE-Federally listed endangered.
FE-Federally listed threatened.
P-Proposed.
C1-Federal candidate-category 1.
C2-Federal candidate-category 2.
3C-Federal candidate-category 3C.
State Status(Species of Special Concern):
S1-Federal threatened or endangered plant species and species that are rare throughout their range,
including a number of species which only occur in Colorado.
R-Rare.
4-34
Etat
The fringed-tailed myotis (Myotis thysanodes pahasapensis) is a Federal candidate Category 2
species (USFWS 1991). The fringed-tailed myotis inhabits caves and attics of old buildings
(Burt and Grossenheider 1976). Caves and abandoned buildings are not present in the project
area. Therefore, impacts to the fringed-tailed myotis are not anticipated as a result of
construction or operation activities.
The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is Federally-listed as an endangered species in 43
of the 48 conterminous states, including Colorado, and is listed as a state threatened species
(USFWS 1993; CDOW 1993). Bald eagles are also protected under the Bald Eagle Protection
Act of June 8, 1949, as amended, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of July 3, 1918, as
amended. Bald eagles are an uncommon to locally common winter resident in western valleys
and mountain parks, and on the eastern plains (Andrews and Righter 1992). Bald eagles utilize
reservoirs and rivers, and occasionally may use semideserts and grassland with prairie dog
colonies during the winter (Andrews and Righter 1992). The bald eagle is a rare summer
resident in Colorado and occurs very locally. In the last several years, there have been 10 or
more breeding pairs in Moffat, Rio Blanco, Mesa, Montezuma, La Plata, Archuleta, Adams, and
Weld Counties (Craig 1991). Bald eagles occur south of the project area along the South Platte
and Cache La Poudre Rivers from November through March (Andrews and Righter 1992). The
project area does not include rivers or reservoirs; therefore, impacts to bald eagles are not
anticipated as a result of construction or operation activities.
The whooping crane (Grus americana) is Federally-listed as an endangered species and is also
listed as a state endangered species (USFWS 1993; CDOW 1993). The whooping crane is
considered a casual migrant on the eastern plains of Colorado (Andrews and Righter 1992).
Habitat typically used by whooping cranes during migration includes mudflats around reservoirs,
riverine habitats, large wetlands, and agricultural areas. Migrating whooping cranes typically use
reservoirs, riparian habitats,and large wetlands as roosting and feeding areas. Whooping cranes
also use cultivated cropland as feeding areas. Four sightings of whooping cranes have been
documented in Weld County since 1973; one sighting was made during spring migration and
three sightings were made during fall migrations (Andrews and Righter 1992). Whooping cranes
may use cultivated cropland in the project vicinity and riparian habitat along the South Platte and
Cache La Poudre Rivers infrequently during spring and fall migrations. However, large wetlands
and riparian habitats are not present within the project area. Therefore, impacts to whooping
cranes are not anticipated as a result of construction and operation activities.
The least tern (Sterna antillarum) is Federally-listed as an endangered species and is also listed
as a state endangered species (USFWS 1993; CDOW 1993). The least tern is considered a very
rare spring and fall migrant on the northeastern plains of Colorado (Andrews and Righter 1992).
Habitat typically used by least terns during migration includes reservoirs, lakes, and rivers with
3797-006-300 4-35 November 1996
Rat
bare, sandy shorelines. Five sightings of least terns have been documented along the South
Platte River during spring and fall migrations (Andrews and Righter 1992). Sightings of
2 nonbreeding pairs of least terns have been documented in Weld County. Least terns may use
bare,sandy shorelines along the South Platte and Cache La Poudre Rivers and Darling Reservoir
infrequently during spring and fall migrations. However, reservoirs, lakes, and rivers with bare,
sandy shorelines do not occur in the project area. Therefore, impacts to least terns are not
anticipated as a result of construction and operation activities.
The piping plover (Charadrius melodus) is Federally-listed as a threatened species and is also
listed as a state threatened species (USFWS 1993; CDOW 1993). The piping plover is
considered a very rare spring and fall migrant on the eastern plains of Colorado (Andrews and
Righter 1992). Habitat typically used by piping plovers during migration includes mudflats and
shorelines of reservoirs and lakes. Piping plovers may infrequently use mudflats and shorelines
along Darling Reservoir. Reservoirs and lakes are not present in the project area. Therefore,
impacts to piping plovers is not anticipated as a result of construction and operation activities.
The white-faced ibis (Plegadis chili') is a Federal candidate Category 2 species (USFWS 1991).
The white-faced ibis occurs throughout Colorado's lowlands and mountain parks primarily as a
migrant; however, this species also has been known to nest in the San Luis Valley and near
Greeley(Andrews and Righter 1992). White-faced ibises utilize wet meadows, marsh edges, and
reservoir shorelines (Andrews and Righter 1992). Since wet meadows, marshes, or reservoirs
are not located in the project area, impacts to white-faced ibises are not anticipated as a result
of construction or operation activities.
The western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus) is a Federal candidate Category 2 species
(USFWS 1991). The western snowy plover is an uncommon spring and fall migrant, and
summer resident on the southeastern plains from Otero County east to Kiowa County (Andrews
and Righter 1992). Breeding pairs of western snowy plovers occur on alkali flats adjacent to
reservoirs. Migrants also occur on mudflats and sandy shorelines. Western snowy plovers use
riparian areas adjacent to the South Platte River during seasonal migration periods, which
typically occur April through May and July through August (Andrews and Righter 1992). Since
alkali flats, mudflats, and sandy shorelines are not located in the project area, impacts to western
snowy plovers are not anticipated as a result of construction or operation activities.
The mountain plover (Charadrius montanus) is a Federal candidate Category 2 species (USFWS
1991). The mountain plover is a rare to fairly common summer resident locally on the eastern
plains (Andrews and Righter 1992). Weld County supports the largest number of nesting
mountain plovers in Colorado; populations in Weld County were estimated to be 1,971 birds in
1991. Mountain plovers are associated with the short-grass prairie and do not utilize cultivated
3797-006300 4-36 November ber 1994
DIOR
croplands as habitat. Mountain plovers occur primarily on level areas with very short grass and
scattered cactus and avoid taller grass and hillsides (Andrews and Righter 1992). Short-grass
prairie does not occur in the project; therefore, impacts to mountain plovers are not anticipated
as a result of construction or operation activities.
The long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus) is a Federal candidate Category 3C species
(USFWS 1991). The long-billed curlew is an uncommon to fairly common local summer resident
on the southeastern plains of Colorado (Andrews and Righter 1992). This species also is a rare
spring and fall migrant in western valleys and mountain parks, and on the eastern plains. Habitat
consists of short-grass grasslands and sometimes in wheatfields or fallow fields. Migrants also
are seen on shorelines and in meadows and fields (Andrews and Righter 1992). Short-grass
prairie does not occur in the project area; therefore, impacts to long-billed curlews are not
anticipated as a result of construction or operation activities.
The black tern (Chlidonias niger) is a Federal candidate Category 2 species (USFWS 1991). The
black tern is a local uncommon summer resident on the southeastern plains in the Arkansas
River Valley (Andrews and Righter 1992). This species also is a casual to very rare spring and
fall migrant on the northeastern plains. Breeding habitat for the black tern consists of bare sandy
shorelines of islands in reservoirs. Migrants occur at reservoirs, lakes,and rivers with bare sandy
shorelines (Andrews and Righter 1992). Black terns may occur as spring and fall migrants in the
project vicinity. Since bare sandy shorelines associated with reservoirs, lakes,and reservoirs are
not located in the project area, impacts to black terns are not anticipated as a result of
construction or operation activities.
The ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) is a Federal candidate Category 2 species (USFWS 1991).
The ferruginous hawk is a fairly common to common winter resident on the eastern plains and
is considered a rare to uncommon summer resident locally on the eastern plains (Andrews and
Righter 1992). Habitat for the ferruginous hawk is characterized by grasslands and semidesert
shrublands. Breeding birds nest in isolated trees, on rock outcrops, structures such as windmills
and power poles, or on the ground (Andrews and Righter 1992). Winter residents concentrate
around prairie dog colonies. Migrants and winter residents may also occur in shrublands and
agricultural areas. The project area is not considered nesting habitat for the ferruginous.
However, the ferruginous hawk may use the project area as a foraging area. Since nesting
habitat is not located in the project area, impacts to ferruginous hawks are not anticipated as a
result of construction or operation activities.
The loggerhead shrike (Lanus ludovicianus) is a Federal candidate Category 2 species (USFWS
1991). The loggerhead shrike is a fairly common spring and fall migrant in western valleys and
on the eastern plains and a rare to locally uncommon summer resident on the eastern plains
3797-006300 4-37 November 1894
EPRR
(Andrews and Righter 1992). Habitat for the loggerhead shrike consists of open riparian areas,
agricultural areas, grasslands, and shrublands, especially semidesert shrublands. Loggerhead
shrikes usually nest in isolated trees or large shrubs. Loggerhead shrikes may occur in the
project vicinity. However, it is highly unlikely that loggerhead shrikes would occur in the project
area since this species is primarily a spring and fall migrant through the project vicinity and has
been extirpated as a breeding species in some areas of eastern Colorado (Andrews and Righter
1992).
The Baird's sparrow (Ammodramus bairdii) is a Federal candidate Category 2 species (USFWS
1991). The Baird's sparrow is considered a casual fall migrant and accidental spring migrant on
the eastern plains of Colorado (Andrews and Righter 1992). During spring and fall migrations,
this species typically utilizes native grasslands and rarely occurs in grassy areas along ditches
and roads. Native grasslands are not present in the project area. Therefore, impacts to the
Baird's sparrow are not anticipated as a result of construction or operation activities.
The plains topminnow (Fundulus sciadicus) is a Federal candidate Category 2 species (USFWS
1991). The plains topminnow has been documented to occur in the South Platte River and
typically inhabits small to medium-sized, clear, sandy to rocky streams with moderate to rapid
current (Lee et al. 1980). This species also may occur in quiet pools and backwaters. Since the
South Platte River is not located in the project area, impacts to the plains topminnow are not
anticipated as a result of construction or operation activities.
The regal fritillary butterfly (Speyeria idalia) is a Federal candidate Category 2 species (USFWS
1991). The regal fritillary butterfly is a wet meadow and virgin prairie species that formerly ranged
from New England to eastern Colorado and Wyoming in suitable habitats. With conversion of
the prairies to agriculture, its range is much reduced. It should be sought in wet meadows and
undisturbed prairie lands near marshes (Ferris and Brown 1980). Since habitat for the regal
fritillary butterfly are not located in the project area, impacts to the species are not anticipated
as a result of construction or operation activities.
The cylindrical papershell (Anodontoides ferussacianus) is a very rare species in Colorado
(CNHP 1994). This species occurs in large rivers and is most abundant in shallow areas
(Pennak 1989). Since the large rivers are not located in the project area, impacts to the
cylindrical papershell are not anticipated as a result of construction or operation activities.
The Ute ladies'-tresses orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis) is Federally-listed as threatened and a
species of special concern in Colorado (USFWS 1993; Colorado Natural Areas Inventory
[CNAI) 1991). The Ute ladies'-tresses orchid has been documented to occur, and potentially
occurs, in areas with seasonally wet soils and wet meadows near springs, lakes, or perennial
3797-006-300 4-38 November 1994
EleIt
streams, and their associated floodplains below 6,500 feet elevation (USFWS 1992a). Two
historically-documented populations are known to occur in eastern Colorado; one population
occurs near Boulder Creek, Boulder County and another population occurs near Clear Creek,
Jefferson County (USFWS 1992b). Irrigation ditches located in the project area include moist
soils, although the banks of the ditches are dominated by wetland and ruderal species.
Therefore, irrigation ditches would not be considered habitat for the Ute ladies'-tresses orchid.
Since the project area also does not include rivers or perennial creeks with floodplains, impacts
to the species are not anticipated as a result of construction or operation activities.
The Colorado butterfly weed (Gaura neomexicana spp. coloradensis) is a Federal candidate
Category 1 and a species of special concern in Colorado (USFWS 1993; CNAI 1991). Habitat
for the Colorado butterfly weed is characterized by moist prairie meadows along the mountain
front from Castle Rock, Colorado to Cheyenne, Wyoming, in the transition zone between wet
stream bottom and rich floodplain areas (CNPS 1989). Since wet prairie meadows and
floodplain areas are not located in the project area, impacts to the Colorado butterfly weed are
not anticipated as a result of construction or operation activities.
The showy prairie gentian (Eustoma grandiflorum) is a species that has been proposed to be
listed as endangered or threatened (USFWS 1993). The showy prairie gentian requires a fairly
high water table in moist, open fields and meadows underlain by sandy alluvial soils (CNPS
1989). Since moist, open fields and meadows are not located in the project area, impacts to the
showy prairie gentian are not anticipated as a result of construction or operation activities.
The dwarf milkweed (Asclepias uncial's) is a Federal candidate Category 2 (USFWS 1993).
Habitat for the dwarf milkweed includes dry hills and plains at elevations of 4,000 to 5,300 feet
(Harrington 1964). Since the project area does not include dry hills or plains, impacts to the
dwarf milkweed are not anticipated as a result of construction and operation activities.
4.12 Wetlands
Information regarding wetlands present in the project area was obtained via review of National
Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, observations made during field reconnaissance activities, and
discussions with Mr.Terry McKee of the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers (COE). Natural wetlands
were not observed in the project area. However, the project area includes 7 irrigation ditches
(5 earthen and 2 cement-lined ditches), that are used for the transportation of irrigation water to
cultivated cropland, and 1 pond.
The majority of the irrigation ditches contained flowing or ponded water and were approximately
3 feet wide and 3 feet deep. Wetland plant species commonly observed along the margins of
3797-006-300 4-39 November 1994
these ditches included galingale, sedges, saltgrass, and curly dock. The earthen irrigation
ditches are considered wetlands since these ditches contain water during most of the growing
season, contain soils with hydric properties (i.e., saturated soils and mottling), and support a
prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation(McKee 1994). However,filling activities potentially affecting
these irrigation ditches are exempt from jurisdiction by the COE since these wetlands are part
of on-going agricultural practices. Therefore, the filling and culverting activities within these
wetlands during runway construction would not require a COE permit (McKee 1994).
Concrete-lined irrigation ditches would not be considered wetlands since hydric soil indicators
and hydrophytic species were not observed within the ditches.
The pond is located in the northwestern quarter of Section 35, approximately 0.2 mile south of
County Road 64. It is possible that the pond is outside the potential area of disturbance. In any
case, this pond is a wetland since it contains water during most of the growing season, contains
soils with hydric properties (i.e., saturated soils and mottling), and supports a prevalence of
hydrophytic vegetation. However,any filling activities potentially affecting the wetland are exempt
from jurisdiction by the COE since it is part of on-going agricultural practices. Therefore, if filling
is necessary within this wetland during runway construction, it would not require a COE permit.
Approximately 6 wetlands would be affected during construction activities; construction activities
related to runway expansion would result in the filling of approximately 0.3 acre of
non-jurisdictional wetlands. Jurisdictional wetlands would not be impacted as a result of
construction activities.
4.13 Floodplains
The project area is located in an upland and is not intersected by rivers, creeks, or other
perennial water courses. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),
the project area is not located within a 100-year floodplain (FEMA 1982). However,2 floodplains
occur within the project vicinity, including the Cache La Poudre River floodplain (approximately
0.6 mile south of the project area) and the South Platte River floodplain (approximately 1.2 miles
south of the project area). Since the project area is not located within a 100-year floodplain,
impacts to floodplains would not occur from the Proposed Action or the Take No Action
alternative.
3797-008-300 4-40 November 1984
4.14 Coastal Zone Management Program
There are no coastal zones associated with the proposed Greeley-Weld County Airport
expansion; therefore, compliance with the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 is not a factor
in this EA. No impacts would occur from the Proposed Action or the Take No Action alternative.
4.15 Coastal Barriers
There are no coastal barriers associated with the proposed Greeley-Weld County Airport
expansion; therefore, compliance with the Coastal Barriers Resources Act of 1982 is not a factor
in this EA. No impacts would occur from the Proposed Action or the Take No Action alternative.
4.16 Wild and Scenic Rivers
The two rivers near the Greeley-Weld County Airport are the Cache La Poudre and the South
Platte; however, there are no Wild and Scenic Rivers in the vicinity of the airport. The Cache La
Poudre River upstream in Larimer County is so designated, but it is too distant to be a factor for
the Greeley-Weld County Airport expansion. Therefore, neither the Take No-Action alternative
nor the Proposed Action would have an impact on any Wild and Scenic River.
4.17 Prime and Unique Farmland
Information regarding soils, and prime and unique farmland present within the project area was
obtained from the Soil Survey of Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part and other soils
information was obtained from Soil Conservation Service (SCS) personnel-Weld County Field
Office (SCS 1980).
Six soil series occur in the project area,they include Altvan loam (0 to 1 percent slopes),Ascalon
loam (0 to 1 percent slopes), Nunn clay loam (0 to 1 percent slopes), Olney fine sandy loam
(1 to 3 percent slopes), Otero sandy loam (1 to 3 percent slopes), and Vona sandy loam (1 to
3 percent slopes) (SCS 1980). The Altvan loam (0 to 1 percent slopes) is a deep, well drained
soil located on terraces at elevations of 4,500 to 4,900 feet (SCS 1980). This soil was formed
in old alluvium deposited by the major rivers and has physical properties which include slow
surface runoff and low erosion hazard. Altvan loam is used primarily for the production of
various crops and is classified as prime farmland if irrigated (SCS 1980).
The Ascalon loam (0 to 1 percent slopes) is a deep, well drained soil located on terraces at
elevations of 4,500 to 4,900 feet (SCS 1980). This soil was formed in old alluvium deposited by
the major rivers and has physical properties which include slow surface runoff and low erosion
3797-006-300 4-41
November 7996
EICR
hazard. Ascalon loam is used primarily for the production of various crops and is classified as
prime farmland if irrigated (SCS 1980).
The Nunn clay loam (0 to 1 percent slopes) is a deep, well drained soil located on terraces and
smooth plains at elevations of 4,550 to 5,150 feet (SCS 1980). This soil was formed in mixed
alluvium and eolian deposits and has physical properties which include slow surface runoff and
low erosion hazard. Nunn clay loam is used primarily for the production of various crops and
is classified as prime farmland if irrigated (SCS 1980).
The Olney fine sandy loam (1 to 3 percent slopes) is a deep, well drained soil located on plains
at elevations of 4,600 to 5,200 feet (SCS 1980). This soil was formed in mixed outwash deposits
and has physical properties which include medium surface runoff and low erosion hazard. Olney
fine sandy loam is used primarily for the production of various crops and is classified as prime
farmland if irrigated (SCS 1980).
The Otero sandy loam (1 to 3 percent slopes) is a deep, well drained soil located on plains at
elevations of 4,700 to 5,250 feet (SCS 1980). This soil was formed in mixed outwash and eolian
deposits and has physical properties which include slow surface runoff and low erosion hazard.
Otero sandy loam is used primarily for the production of various crops and is classified as prime
farmland if irrigated (SCS 1980).
The Vona sandy loam (1 to 3 percent slopes) is a deep, well drained soil located on plains and
high terraces at elevations of 4,600 to 5,200 feet (SCS 1980). This soil was formed in eolian and
alluvial deposits and has physical properties which include slow surface runoff and low erosion
hazard. Vona sandy loam is used primarily for the production of various crops and is classified
as prime farmland if irrigated (SCS 1980).
Form AD-1006 was processed by the SCS and evaluates farmland protected by the SCS and
the sponsoring airport agency (Appendix F). Approximately 263 acres of prime and unique
farmland, or 75 percent of the project area would be removed from crop production as a result
of the runway construction. According to the SCS, this number represents approximately
0.016 percent of the total acres of prime and unique farmland within Weld County. This would
not be considered a significant impact. In addition, approximately 31 percent of the farmland
within Weld County has the same or higher relative value as the land proposed for acquisition.
The remainder of the project area (approximately 87 acres) would be temporarily disturbed
during construction activities and could be utilized as cultivated cropland during runway
operation. The loss of agricultural production on the farmland represents an economic impact.
However, to the extent feasible and where safety is maintained, a portion of this land could be
3797-006-300 4-42
November 1994
DM
leased for continued agricultural use, and the amount of land that would be lost to active
production Is less than 1 percent of the total county area.
The farmland conversion impact rating total score is 196. According to the Farmland Protection
Policy Act(FPPA), section 658.4 (c)(2) of the Code of Federal Regulations (7CFR),sites receiving
a total score of more than 160 must examine several alternatives including:
- 1. Acquisition of farmland not protected by the FPPA. Other neighboring lands north of
Highway 263 are also considered prime if irrigated and it is not feasible to expand the
Airport on the south side of the highway. Therefore, any expansion of the Airport would
require the acquisition of some farmland protected by the FPPA.
2. Using existing airport land instead of acquiring new land. The land currently owned by the
Airport is not of sufficient size to accommodate the proposed new runway.
3. Using alternate sites or layouts. Alternate layouts were considered during the preparation
of the Airport Master Plan update and the Proposed Action was the preferred alternative.
It reduces environmental concerns and operational conflicts, and provides the most
cost-effective method for addressing the increased traffic that is forecast for Greeley-Weld
County Airport.
If the Take No Action alternative is selected, no additional farmland would be acquired.
4.18 Energy Supply and Natural Resources
The Proposed Action would increase the power requirements for the Airport, since the runway,
taxiway and apron areas would 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 would not have a significant impact on the nation's total fuel resources. For the
proposed expansion project, fuel consumption is expected to increase with the increase in
aircraft operations at the Airport. This increase would not have a significant impact on the
nation's total fuel resources.
At the present time, there are six existing oil and gas wells and one proposed well located on
the property to be acquired for the new runway complex (see Table 4-6). Gerrity Oil and Gas
Company own five of the existing wells and the one proposed well. The sixth existing well is
owned by the Zabka family. In anticipation of the proposed runway construction, members of
the Airport Authority have met with the impacted well owners to make them aware of the project,
the proposed schedule, and to discuss possible measures that could be implemented to
3797-006300 4-43
November 1994
Table 4-6
Greeley-Weld County Airport Project
Oil and Gas Wells
Location, Status Owner
T5N,R65W Existing Zabka Family
NE1/4NW1/4, Sec. 2
T6N, R65W Existing Gerrity Oil and Gas
SE1/4NW1/4, Sec. 26
T6N, R65W Existing Gerrity Oil and Gas
NE1/4SW1/4, Sec. 26
T6N, R65W Proposed Gerrity Oil and Gas
SE1/4SW1/4, Sec. 26
T6N, R65W Existing Gerrity Oil and Gas
SE1/4NW1/4, Sec. 35
T6N, R65W Existing Gerrity Oil and Gas
NE1/4SW1/4, Sec. 35
T6N, R65W Existing Gerrity Oil and Gas
SE1/4SW1/4, Sec. 35
4-44
Etat
maintain operation of the wells. Possible mitigation measures could include purchasing mineral
rights, relocating existing and proposed wells, or plugging and abandoning existing wells.
Should it be necessary to plug and abandon any existing well, then the State of Colorado Oil
and Gas Conservation Commission's Rules and Regulations governing abandonment procedures
would be followed.
Drilling rigs are a potential obstruction when located within the vicinity of the Airport especially
within the approach surfaces. If any drilling rigs are placed on Airport property, the operators
must notify the FM to determine if the rigs will require marking and obstruction lighting. This
notification is accomplished by using FM Form 7460-1 Notice of Proposed Construction or
Alteration. No existing facilities violate Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77.
If the Take No Action alternative is selected, the power requirements for the Airport would not
increase significantly and there would be no impact to existing oil and gas wells.
4.19 Light Emissions
The proposed new runway construction is planned to be lighted and the Instrument Landing
System (ILS) relocated. Included with the ILS is MALSR and runway alignment indicator lights.
Visual Approach Slope Indicators (VASI) would either be relocated to the south or Precision
Approach Path Indicators (PAPI)would be installed. The VASI and PAPI are used to assist pilots
in their approaches for landing.
The runway edge lighting is used to delineate the usable portion of the runway during darkness
or poor visibility weather conditions. The edge lights are located on a line off the runway
pavement and emit either a white or yellow light depending on their location. Taxiway lighting
for the parallel taxiways for the runway is also scheduled to be installed. These lights use a blue
colored lens and are spaced approximately 200 feet apart. These lights are low-wattage and
provide ground taxi guidance only, as opposed to the higher intensity runway lights. The taxiway
lighting system is, by design, of low visual impact as it must not distract pilots on the active
runway.
There are no homesites in the vicinity of the Airport that would be significantly impacted by the
approach aids or the runway/taxiway lights. In addition, vehicular traffic along State Highway
263 would be perpendicular to the new runway and should not be adversely affected by light
emissions. 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.
No additional impacts from light emissions would result from the Take No Action alternative.
3797-00&309 4-45 November 1994
Mat
4.20 Solid Waste Impact
Solid wastes generated at the airport are disposed of at a licensed sanitary landfill. Presently,
the closest landfill to the Airport is the Central Weld Landfill. The Central Weld Landfill was
opened in 1971. The size of this site is 108 acres. The landfill is located approximately 2 miles
northeast of Milliken and 3 miles south of Greeley. More specifically, the site lies west of Weld
County Road 27 and north of State Highway 60. This landfill has an estimated service area of
530 square miles and can serve a population of 83,000. The service area of this landfill includes
the residents of Greeley, Evans, Garden City, Milliken, Johnstown, La Salle, Platteville, Kersey,
and Gilcrest.
- The Central Weld Landfill is scheduled to be closed no later than December 31, 1997 (Morrison
1994). At that time, current users of the Central Weld Landfill would probably start using one of
two additional existing landfills operated by Waste Management (north of Highway 14, west of
Ault; or north of 1-76, near Keenesburg). Greeley-Weld County Airport would use one of the
existing landfills that would be the most economical and efficient to the Airport's operation. Weld
County is currently working on an amendment to the 1992 Comprehensive Plan regarding Solid
Waste, but this exercise is not expected to be completed for several more months (Morrison
1994).
The Airport Authority in concert with the City/County officials would assure that no new landfills
be established near the Airport site, and in no case, within 3,000 meters of the proposed new
runway. For the proposed expansion project, construction contract specifications would require
strict control of solid waste materials generated during construction. A control plan for waste
collection and disposal would be implemented upon commencement of construction to preclude
or minimize debris from being scattered outside the Airport boundaries.
If the Take No Action alternative is selected, the amount of solid waste generated at the Airport
would not increase significantly from the existing level.
4.21 Construction Impacts
Construction operations would 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:
3797-006-.300 4-46 November 1994
• 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 and while roads are closed,
bridged, or rerouted.
• Temporary erosion, scarring of land surfaces and loss of vegetation in areas which are
excavated or otherwise disturbed to carry out future developments.
• A short-term increase in turbidities in groundwater resources, similar to those
experienced during plowing operations.
The Take No Action alternative would preclude any construction activities.
4.22 Environmental Impact and Mitigation Summary
Items impacted by the expansion of the Airport as proposed by the Greeley-Weld County Airport
Authority and potential mitigation measures that can be taken to minimize the impact on these
areas are summarized below.
Noise Impact:
• No significant noise impacts are anticipated.
Compatible Land-Use Impacts:
• Weld County and the City of Greeley have stated that current land uses in the vicinity
of Greeley-Weld County Airport are compatible with Airport operations and the proposed
expansion of Greeley-Weld County Airport is compatible with adopted comprehensive
land use plans; however, the proposed expansion would require amendments to the
3797-0O3-300 4-47 November 1984
County's Airport Overlay District map and to the Airport's PUD Plan. These
amendments would be consistent and compatible with the adopted land use policies
for this area.
Social Impacts:
• The closure of portions of County Roads 62, 64, and 641h.
• The proposed expansion of Greeley-Weld County Airport would require the acquisition
of approximately 350 acres. No dwelling unit relocations would be required; however,
two relocations are being considered after discussions with the landowners and FAA
-- because of the close proximity of the residences to the year 2015 65 Ldn noise contour.
Mitigation measures that could be implemented would include widening and paving portions
of County Roads 45, 47, and 66 (see Section 4.4.3).
Induced Socioeconomic Impacts:
• The overall socioeconomic impact caused by the proposed expansion of Greeley-Weld
County Airport should be beneficial in that it would provide a short-term increase in
construction employment, and a longer duration increase in permanent employment
and in generated tax revenues as a result of increased sales of aviation-related goods
and services. No significant adverse public facilities and services effects are anticipated
from the proposed expansion of Greeley-Weld County Airport.
Air Quality:
• Construction activities would create a temporary increase in air pollution. An emissions
permit in accordance with the State of Colorado, Fugitive Dust Regulation Number 1 will
be obtained prior to construction. The permit would require the contractor to take
reasonable measures to control particulates from becoming airborne.
• The analysis results show that the CO and PM-10 emissions resulting from the project
would not contribute to the violation of the air quality standards on a microscale.
Extrapolation of the results to a larger geographic scale would yield smaller predicted
values than were obtained in this analysis. Because the worst-case conditions and
locations were examined and no violations of the standards were predicted, no
violations of the standards would be expected for other locations with lower traffic
3797.008300 4-48 November 1994
Bat
volumes. Further, the proposed project will not contribute to or cause any violations of
ambient air quality standards on a regional scale.
Water Quality:
• The Airport would apply for a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
General Permit for Storm Water Discharges from Construction Sites and would comply
with all permit requirements, including the preparation of a Stormwater Management
Plan and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. Through proper design and
construction practices, including prompt revegetation, no impact on water quality would
be expected.
Department of Transportation (DOT) Act - Section 4(f) Lands:
• No Impacts.
Historical, Architectural, Archaeological, and Cultural Resources:
• It is recommended that should any sites be discovered in an archaeological context
during construction that they be evaluated by a professional archaeologist in
consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and if deemed
necessary by the SHPO, appropriate data recovery measures be undertaken at that
time.
Biotic Communities:
• Vegetation removal would be limited to those areas associated with construction. As
needed, a revegetation program would be developed with the assistance of the SCS or
local County Extension office. Mitigation measures may include erosion controls and
landscape restoration.
• Minimal indirect impacts to wildlife resulting from increased levels of airplane traffic and
noise would take place, but no significant effects on wildlife species or habitat are
expected.
Mitigation measures that could be implemented during the construction and operation of the
runway would include:
3797-006300 4-49 November 1994
• Umit construction equipment to the runway and immediately adjacent areas to preclude
the disturbance of crops and compaction of soils in peripheral areas;
• Reclaim areas immediately adjacent to the runway(i.e.embankments and medians)that
would not be maintained as cultivated cropland with a native seed mixture approved by
the SCS; and
• Umit Airport maintenance vehicles to the runway and existing roads thereby avoiding
impacts to reclaimed areas.
Endangered and Threatened Species of Flora and Fauna:
• The proposed expansion of the Airport would not affect any Federally-listed threatened
or endangered species.
Wetlands:
• Filling and culverting activities potentially affecting irrigation ditches are exempt from
jurisdiction by the COE since these 'wetlands' are part of on-going agricultural
practices, and, therefore, a COE permit would not be required for the runway
construction. Jurisdictional wetlands would not be impacted.
Mitigation measures that could be implemented include:
• A culvert will be placed in the bottom of the irrigation ditch to be filled so as to allow the
continual flow of irrigation water to cultivated cropland; and
• Filling activities will be limited to the minimal acreage required for runway expansion.
Floodplains:
• No impacts.
Coastal Zone Management:
• Not applicable.
3797-006.100 4-50 November 1094
Belt
Coastal Barriers:
• Not applicable.
Wild and Scenic Rivers:
• Not applicable.
Prime and Unique Farmland:
• The proposed Greeley-Weld County Airport expansion project will remove approximately
263 acres of prime and unique farmland from active production. The remainder of
acquired land could be leased for agricultural use.
Potential mitigation measures for Prime and Unique Farmland impacts would be the same
as those described under Biotic Communities.
Energy Supply:
• Oil and natural gas drilling rigs are a potential obstruction to flying aircraft. Operators
of drilling rigs on Airport property must notify the FM using From 7460-1 (Notice of
Proposed Construction or Alteration) to determine if marking and installation of
obstruction lights is necessary.
• Compensation will be made to affected well operators, mineral rights owners/lessees.
Light Emissions:
• Considering the rural nature of the Airport site, and the location and orientation of the
runway and approach lighting, light emissions would be comparable to headlight
emissions from traffic along State Highway 263. In addition,vehicular traffic along State
Highway 263 would be perpendicular to the runway and the lighting systems, and
should not be adversely affected by light emissions. If specific complaints are received
from current homeowners in the area, possible mitigation measures include the
installation of baffling or shielding of lights to reduce visual impacts. As development
occurs in the Airport vicinity, light shields could be placed where direct light spillage
would affect the use of nearby property.
3797-10&300 4-51 November 1980
Solid Waste:
• No significant impacts.
Construction Impacts:
• Construction impacts would temporarily scar the land,increase solid and sanitary waste,
and increase local traffic volume from construction and delivery vehicles. Seeding of
the disturbed areas after construction would prevent long-term erosion of topsoil. Other
impacts are temporary and would cease when construction is complete (see
Section 4.21).
Construction measures to mitigate temporary impacts for the proposed Airport expansion
include the following:
1. The provisions of FM Advisory Circular 150/5320-5, Airport Drainage, would be
incorporated into the specifications to prevent runoff from the construction areas
entering neighboring properties.
2. The project specifications would contain construction controls to minimize air and
water pollution.
3. Reseeding of disturbed areas and acquisition of necessary permits for compliance
with the State of Colorado's Air Quality Regulations would be required.
Table 4-7 provides a summary comparison of the Proposed Action and the Take No Action
alternative. The threshold of significance for the various environmental impact categories is
defined in Federal Aviation Administration Order 5050.4A, and is addressed in the text
concerning these categories on the preceding pages.
3797-006300 4-52 November 1990
Table 4-7
Comparative Summary of Environmental Impacts for the
Greeley-Weld County Airport Project
Environmental Impact Take No Action Proposed Action (Construct
Category Aiternatlee Runway 16/34)
Noise . No Significant Impact No Significant Impact
Compatible Land Use No Impact No Significant Impact
Social Impacts No Significant Impact Acquisition of approximately 350
acres of land and the potential
relocation of two residences.
Portions of County Roads 62, 64,
and 641,4 would be closed.
Portions of County Rods 45, 47,
66 would be widened and paved
to mitigate road closures.
Inducted Socioeconomic No Significant Impact Proposed Action would result in
Impacts increased sales of aviation related
goods and services
Air Quality No Significant Impact No Significant Impact. Fugitive
Dust Permit to be obtained prior
to beginning construction
Water Quality No Impact No Significant Impact
DOT Act - Section 4(f) No Impact No Impact
Historical, Architectural, No Impact No historic sites or isolated finds
Archaeological, Cultural have been recorded on the
Resources proposed expansion area.
[Final SHIN) determination after
crops are harvested and the
Class III pedestrian survey can
be completed]
Biotic Communities No Impact No Significant Impact
Endangered and Threatened No Impact No Significant Impact
Species of Flora and Fauna
Wetlands No Impact No Significant Impact
Floodplains No Impact No Impact
Coastal Zone Management Not Applicable Not Applicable
Coastal Barriers Not Applicable Not Applicable
4-53
Table 4-7 (Continued)
Environmental impact Take No Action Proposed Action (Construct
Category Aftemathre Runway 16/34)
Wild and Scenic Rivers No Impact No Impact
Farmlands No Impact Will remove approximately 263
acres from active production.
Remainder of acquired land
(87 acres) could be leased for
agricultural use
Energy Supply and Natural No Significant Impact No Significant Impact. Increased
Resources airport activity will result in
increase fuel usage
Light Emissions No Significant Impact No Significant Impact
Solid Waste Impact No Significant Impact No Significant Impact
Construction Impacts Not Applicable No Significant Impact
4-54
5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
GREELEY-WELD COUNTY AIRPORT PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Name EA Responsibility
ENSR
Bill Theisen Project management, coordination of technical
Project Manager studies and subcontractor, EA preparation,
technical writing and editing, quality review.
Jon Alstad Biotic communities, endangered and threatened
species of flora and fauna, wetlands, vegetation,
floodplains, and farmlands.
Bret Peterson Air quality
Vince Pirrello Air quality
Isbill Associates. Inc. Noise
Western Historical Studies. Inc.
Steven F. Mehls, Ph.D. Historic, architectural, archaeological, and cultural
resources.
3797-006-300 5-1 November 1994
6.0 REFERENCES/ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Andrews, R. and Righter R. 1992. Colorado Birds. 442 pp.
Armstrong, D.M. 1993. Lions, Ferrets, and Bears-A Guide to the Mammals of Colorado. p. 30.
Burt W.H. and R.P. Grossenheider. 1976. A Field Guide to the Mammals. 289 pp.
Cicoff, G. 1994. Weld County Public Works Department. Written communication to County
Commissioner Dale Hall. September 12, 1994.
Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW). 1993. Listing of State Endangered, Threatened, and
Non-Game Wildlife Species. 15pp.
Colorado Natural Areas Inventory (CNAI). 1991. Colorado Plant Species of Special Concern List.
19 pp.
Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP). 1994. Information Regarding Special Status
Species That Potentially Occur in the Project Area. Data Response Letter Dated August 10,
1994 and Received From Katherine Pague (CNHP Information Manager).
Colorado Native Plant Society (CNPS) 1989. Rare Plants of Colorado.73 pp.
Craig, G. R. 1991. Bald Eagle Nest Site Protection and Enhancement Program. Job Progress
Report, Colorado Division Wildlife Research Report. 6 pp.
Crier, J. K. 1994. Colorado Department of Transportation Region 4 Planning/Environmental
Manager. Written correspondence to B. Theisen, ENSR Consulting and Engineering.
October 31, 1994.
Daniels-Mika, M. 1994. Long Range Planner. Weld County Department of Planning Services.
Personal communication with B. Theisen, ENSR Consulting and Engineering. October 17,
1994.
Ferris, C.D. and F. Martin Brown. 1980. Butterflies of the Rocky Mountain States. University of
Oklahoma Press.
3797-006300 6-1 November 1994
Etat
Harrington, H.D. 1964. Manual of the Plants of Colorado. p. 435.
Isbill Associates, Inc. 1994. Summary Report Airport Master Plan Update Study for
Greeley-Weld County Airport, Greeley, Colorado. June 1994.
Lee, D.S., C.R. Gilbert, C.H. Hocutt, R.E. Jenkins, D.E. McAllister, and J.R. Stauffer, Jr. 1980.
Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes. p. 527.
McLane, V. 1994. Colorado Air Pollution Control Division (APCD). Personal communication
with B. Peterson, ENSR Consulting and Engineering. September 12, 1994.
McKee, T. 1994. Personal Communication With J. Alstad, ENSR Consulting and Engineering.
August 16, 1994.
Morrison, L. 1994. Weld County Office of County Attorney. Written correspondence to and
personal communication with B. Theisen, ENSR Consulting and Engineering. October 17,
1994.
Pennak, W.R. 1989. Freshwater Invertebrates of the United States. p. 579-581.
Schuett, K. 1994. Current Planner II. Weld County Department of Planning Services. Personal
communication with B. Theisen, ENSR Consulting and Engineering. August 4, 1994.
Schulte, C. 1994. Senior Vice President. Greeley/Weld Economic Development Action
Partnership (EDAP), Inc. Written communication to B. Theisen, ENSR Consulting and
Engineering. August 8, 1994.
Soil Conservation Service (SCS). 1980. Soil Survey of Weld County, Colorado, Southern Part.
135 pp.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1994. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants. Federal Register 50 CFR Part 17; Petition to List the Swift Fox as Endangered.
Vol. 59, No. 104.
. 1993. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Federal Register 50 CFR 17.11
and 17.12. August 23, 1993.
. 1992a. Interim Survey Requirements for Spiranthes diluvialis. 8 pp.
3797-00&300 6-2
November 1981
OCR
. 1992b. Final Rule to List the Plant Spiranthes diluvialis (Ute ladies'-tresses) as a
Threatened Species. CFR 50 Part 17.
Weld County Comprehensive Plan. 1992.
3797-006-300 6-3
November 1994
Elat
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ALP Airport Layout Plan
APEN Air Pollution Emission Notice
AWOS Automated Weather Observation System
BRL Building Restriction Line
GASP Colorado Aviation Systems Plan
CDOT Colorado Department of Transportation
CDOW Colorado Department of Wildlife
CDPS Colorado Discharge Permit System
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CNHP Colorado Natural Heritage Program
CO carbon monoxide
COE U.S. Army Corps of Engineer
dBA decibels on the A-weighted scale
DOT Department of Transportation
EA Environmental Assessment
EDAP Greeley/Weld Economic Development Action Partnership, Inc.
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FBO fixed-based operator
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act
HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development
IFR Instrument Flight Rules
ILS Instrument Landing System
INM Integrated Noise Model
Ldn day-night average sound level
Leg equivalent sound level
MALSR Medium Intensity Approach Lights with Runway Alignment Indicator Lights
MIRL Medium Intensity Runway Lighting
ug/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
NPIAS National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems
NSR New Source Review
NWI National Wetland Inventory
PUD Planned Unit Development
REIL Runway End Identifier Lights
3797-008300 6-4 November 1994
Rat
RMNP Rocky Mountain National Park
RVZ Runway Visibility Zone
SCS Soil Conservation Service
SWMP Stormwater Management Plan
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
VASI Visual Approach Slope Indicator
VFR Visual Flight Rules
3797-006-300 6-5 November 1994
APPENDIX A
AIRPORT LAYOUT PLAN
A-1
I I
--'--i }fie'S a o
4 i I g" a
t o zo
3 g¢
E1°` 7 2 9 $3 ilia€ ` v g
x� yy ai. 65 ‘4,.Qd igh gg gg a gg gg g yy gg B iYeic 1 C " F 9J W t
t Ira l " z J O
4 Jy sIl&l•• I I 1.1 i @ € }td td ≤
o 1
I i I e@igiY a u
o
W i'eIIi S I : o
' ' —ill % / g� w
• Y 2ul p a
°� v : .j y . f. o raze li� a>.>.jay � �Ir ° A 1 �51�
•
�, `
rll
Il tw."„,,, 1 ___,..__ __... _ "I
a• II. I I 1(----zi I_ F \` mo, � , o
i�� 5I II �� ��.\` _/ /
[ : 2
j f1I 11: A \\ �:>. . r� 411 IIi I I Ik a � i� 7:11:1'11I
k P�Ir r _
III ,��� a./ d
y'' �• i I I qv I' v I r vi a i,iI
I
@ 11-4;-_-_-I li I I iI w I 0, COi If
II SO: I #eke .
5i m� 9y F$s#s1
tl ? � I 11 ff F Wlaz€
r4 ta
1L V4gglit g
I $ I go a. s <5 > s ' ig
- li
h„M� s2
I 04
\ 1 !�sw, Ilia., o sval
• a E kji tll���p9v��i��O� z
_ 11 II I
I I\k 1 ;ye®a�oe®0OoA'�=' /IS'
8 2dd dddd d dd d dde
• - 1 }h - 14t.44�16l Ira II �'4 w xa x; v Rll I8a_=xayiy§i5t5H-4:
� I I I 4',.":IIGdIFi1�F' slA_e,',i w 3' A
—CI: I L Ib L 2 Qs c� zlllllll 1 M222222222222
E J
E Eq a . ! 1 I
EBrI EEE qii
- _ _ 4 -
y�
s is II� r—�� a
� 11 9i
1�1 ��II_Ij p ag OMzlllllll l lllllllllllllll iiitih...,.. ,� v 4
�ooao�m o�4 �g sas q:;; : ;:
<• 1 i ¢s : ;; j ::::;11
1 gE EAEa ` # I POW". 00a�AV � �F ggss a�F^e R@ seska_& g 7 d iiiilliall •
L Ifi �� v a9
=a
' 11$@ <
1
I
1
APPENDIX B
AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN
I
I
r
I
I
B.,
i
I
W I -E- -S u) oCI J
_ d is _ I I. '�' >: W j O'U d
o:
J e.„. `` % Q U W —
z.
11
i
:IJ [ - ! :£;.F \. -,_..1S iy!� r 1I { $ I IyJ J W
,- - Y C @ . i J >W 2
j °Y ifs 4 �- !it--
, ` li�/l l[i 1 '1,1 31 : , : / t
•
aZ SY z I `i"i.o c... ,.
.W m
.-Ii ≤
•
3
- is
_ L -
.
i r r
i I.
n
1 N , ® o I b L
i Doi
"— �� I
�a k. s.
a �� �tini� - wQ
I _
- ~ --"
iia ,- J
- I \
Iiill-
' •
fi
/ ( f
II
- r ' ' &IP! MO . 1,
iIll Pad � __ Ei7V r �,
1_.
a A� 1: .. ii litr'' A - i
A e /fi iit 1)4
YV ' y
S y r -7- 'r • / a
`� lik '�i.,- o I' A
' 3, . ,..,v.. 14iiii ,j _ . . r
0.
0. ,=0, in IR, iirsifi
Ar...,�' � • 4t'� ff I. �- \,
M !, _ :i
0,..
„ o t.�ll; bl RA t'ilaEll71 a
I!tF im�p��. E r I i7��11�i fF
�/ 1 ' '''; de:441 o „ .. r:;;;97.117141:=4.7 /:;70 ;
�'_ cacvli�P tfL�4'xI ,� r 1 .i!, Ili-at.Niiko all��� �.
4 ` ��ef1l.'Iilw d•.2 Ali 1tP[_Cil:•r 61 r®I!9 i6t" ' C:.."'I�'
fib rglr 10 �6ffss'f 11,lti 17
r 3y —_� mile 1??�ei"ld�6A1.e)ir>r . „ ,.— Cl..e! •.
p
..__•_ r _ t' 5 ' -.._ .\ f/t�l��r�0 ��e�, �`1'•172907 7
914 1 f d
-.y.. . -�_ t Yyg c 1`3t ^ � i i■ �Odl'G �'�°li I.
1 L' rl ti- 't,,.Y '`a
{{ 9 _ 11
a
5 1 'Q '�" '' .J il, >A4 �QI 1.r�►�-Y n L.;17-{�cj a.w-+a :_ll Y y 1 i - J tyI' a _MPFy, At . rfr.,,_,
a. \ /ARV e94lr . K s,R. _ _ � i
. s o 0 0
a a a a . -.
n 'i dal - ' io, : ,1 . .....
. , - I ...wpm tlfr'---0{. "*.1%.7.4 00,,-.)rq ;—.
I I : I I V ( a:a•'?' _ f' '.i„L.--.-- i I l iu z, � `, ":.......,L:1.1141
f! • =:►.11 . -I ih L }
,/ � • 141 f f
APPENDIX C
AGENCY COORDINATION LETTERS
C-1
United States Soil 655 rfet Street
Department of Conservation Room E200C
Agriculture Service Lakewood, CO 80215-5517
Mr. Bill Theisen
Project Manager
ENSR Consulting and Engineering
1716 Heath Parkway
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Dear Mr. Theisen:
I have forwarded your request for comments, concerns, potential
impacts, etc. , for the expansion of the Greeley-Weld County Airport to
Bruce Lindahl, Area Conservationist, Soil Conservation Service,
Greeley, Colorado.
The staff located at this office have first-hand knowledge of the area
and will be able to furnish the information that you are requesting.
Sincerely,CAROL A. WETTSTEIN
State Soil Scientist
cc : Bruce A. Lindahl, Area Conservationist, Greeley
United States Soil 655 1 fet Street
Department of Conservation Room E200C
Agriculture Service Lakewood, CO 80215-5517
Subject : ECS - Farmland Conversion Date: July 21, 1994
Impact Assessment -
Greeley-Weld Co. Airport
To: Bruce A. Lindahl File Code: 190
Area Conservationist
Greeley Area Office
Greeley, CO
Please find the enclosed letter requesting assistance, from the ENSR
Consulting & Engineering firm, concerning an impact assissment for the
Greeley-Weld County Airport expansion.
After preparing the AD-1006 and any supporting information, please
send a copy to Lee Hill, Assistant State Conservationist for
Environmental Quality, for his files.
Thank yoouu.7,, aptei_ge__)`
CAROL A. WETTSTEIN
State Soil Scientist
Enclosures
cc w/o enclosures :
Duane L. Johnson, State Conservationist, Lakewood
Lee Hill, Assistant State Conservationist for Environmental Quality,
Lakewood
Bill Theisen, Protect Manager, ENSR, Fort Collins
COLORADO HISTORICAL SOCIETY
Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
1300 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80203
Bill Theisen
ENSR Consulting and Engineering
1716 Heath Parkway
Ft. Collins, CO 80524
07/25/1994
At your request, the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation has conducted a search of the Colorado
Inventory of Cultural Resources for the following locations:
PM TWNSHP RANGE SECTIONS:
6TN 5N 65W 2
6TH 6N 65W 26 35
10 site(s) were located in the designated area(s).
4 survey(s) were located in the designated area(s).
Results of the search are summarized in the attached report.
NOTE: If you encounter a linear feature in your project area (railroad, ditch, trail etc.) or an associated
feature (railroad depot, reservoir, etc.) you MUST call Todd McMahon at 303-866-5216 to find out if it has been
recorded or not before a Smithsonian number can be assigned.
If information on sites in the project area was found, detailed information follows the summary. If no sites or
districts were found, but surveys are known to have been conducted in the project area, survey information
follows the summary. We do not have completeinformation on surveys conducted in Colorado, and our site files
cannot be considered complete because most of the state has not been surveyed for cultural resources. There is
the possibility that as yet unidentified cultural resources exist within the proposed impact area.
Therefore, in the event there is Federal or State involvement, we recommend that a professional survey be
conducted to identify any cultural resources in the project area which are eligible to be listed in the
National Register of Historic Places. We Look forward to consulting with you regarding the effect of the
proposed project on any eligible cultural resource in accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation Procedures and the Preservation and Protection of Historic and Cultural Resources (36 CFR 800).
Please provide this office with the results of the cultural resource survey for our review of professional
adequacy and compliance with regulations.
If you have any questions, please contact the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation at (303) 866-3395
or 3392.
Thank you for your interest in Colorado's cultural heritage.
Susan M. Collins
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer for Archaeology
• Information regarding significant archeological resources is excluded from the Freedom of Information Act.
Therefore, legal locations of these resources must not be included in documents for public distribution.
#003 Stgree.• EPA
(kfrvc, United States Environmental Protection Agency
a pmared7 Request Ackaisledpraeet
07126/94
Dill Theisen
E N S R Consulting And Engineering
1716 Heath Parkway
Fort Collins,CO 80524
Date of Your Request 07120184 Date Your Request was Received: 07126194
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS REVIEW-GREELY-WELD COUNTY
AIRPORT,GREELEY,COLO
The Agency has ten(10)working days to respond to your request. You can expect e reply shortly after expiration of the
ten-working day period. Further correspondence on this subject should cite the following Request Identification Number.
0B-RIN-01071.94
0 of Officer 1800EA)
STATE OF COLORADO
Roy Romer,Governor
Patricia A.Nolan,MD,MPH,Executive Directors.
_ t
Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people ca Colorado " _ •
4300 Cherry Creek Dr.S. Laboratory Building * ; 4-44
Denver,Colorado 80222-1530 4210 E.11th Avenue • •
Phone(303)692-2000 Denver,Colorado 802 20-3 71 6 't
(303)691-4700 Colorado Department
of Public Health
and Environment
July 26, 1994
Bill Theisen
ENSR
1716 Heath Parkway
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Dear Mr. Theisen:
The Division recently received your July 20, 1994 letters addressed
to John Leary and Mike Silverstein. John Leary no longer works
with the Division. Mike is the SIP Coordinator for PM-10
nonattainment areas, and I am the Coordinator for carbon monoxide
and ozone nonattainment areas. Greeley is still nonattainment for
carbon monoxide, so I am responding to your letters.
The acreage that is identified on the attached area map appears to
be outside (northeast) of the nonattainment area, the boundaries of
which are basically the city limits. Furthermore, the City of
Greeley has indicated that it is interested in beginning the
process of being redesignated to attainment status. It would be my
guess that this process may be completed by the time that the new
runway is constructed.
No matter what Greeley's carbon monoxide attainment status is,
however, you should be aware that the Division's Stationary source
program may require air pollution permits or notices for the runway
project, particularly if ground disturbance exceeds 25 acres or
last longer than six months.
For more information on possible permit or notice requirements,
please contact the Stationary Sources section at (303) 692-3150.
Sincerely yours,
Vicky McLane, Senior Planner
Air Pollution Control Division
July 26, 1994
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing this letter in protest to the unneeded expansion of the Greeley-Weld
County Airport.
As a long-time user (beginning in 1947) of the Greeley-Weld County Airport, a
member and officer of the Airport Users Association, and presently a member of
the Greeley-Weld County Airport Authority Board, I believe that my knowledge
of the needs of this facility is well founded.
The DRAFT Working Paper #1 of the Greeley-Weld County Airport Project En-
vironmental Assessment dated July 1994, Document Number 3797-006-100, is
based on outdated, misleading, and false information. It is my belief that this
information was supplied to ENSR Consulting and Engineering with a full inten-
tion to mislead the taxpaying public and government agencies involved in the
financing of this project.
Please refer to the above-cited report, page 1-1, paragraph 3 where it is noted
that the Greeley-Weld County Airport is centrally located in the populated area
of northern Colorado. If you look at the location of the Greeley-Weld County
Airport you will find that it is located on the eastern side of Greeley. All of
the major population in northern Colorado is west of Greeley with the majority
being along the Front Range in Ft. Collins, Loveland, Longmont, and Boulder.
Why would anyone wish to land an aircraft at the Greeley-Weld County Airport
and drive to any of these cities, other than to Greeley? And, of course, it is
true you can drive to Loveland/Ft. Collins Airport from the west side of Greeley
where all the development and growth is more quickly than you can drive to the
Greeley-Weld County Airport. The Greeley-Weld County Airport is on the wrong
side of Greeley for business type of aviation.
A quote from page 1-1, paragraph 4 of the report cites "Easy access to the
interstate freeway system . . . ." If this statement is true why have the local
governments, North Front Range Transportation and Air Quality Planning Council
tried so hard to get adequate highways built to better serve the Greeley area?
These highways are, without a doubt, needed because Greeley has lost bids for
several major industries. Those industries located in Loveland and Ft. Collins
(i.e. , Wal-Mart, Sam's, and Budweiser). This occurred not because we need a
larger airport but because our highway system is inadequate for easy access to
the freeways of northern Colorado. If the reader(s) doubt this statement, call
the Mayor of Greeley or the person in charge of the Greeley Planning Depart-
ment.
Regarding the statement on page 1-3, second paragraph, as to phenomenal
growth in training activities at the Greeley-Weld County Airport, I find another
attempt to mislead you and the public. It is true that enrollment at AIMS Com-
munity College Air Link Training Center has increased 'somewhat. But, the
flight training at Greeley-Weld County Airport has decreased tremendously in the
past two or three years. There were four flight schools and over 200 students
Page 1
based at the Airport three years ago, but with the attitude of the past Airport
Authority Board and the manipulating of the contracts with AIMS College, all
four schools along with their students, have been lost. We are back up to 20 or
30 students at AIMS Airlink Training Center at the Greeley-Weld County Airport.
It is true that AIMS has a few more students than this but they are out of
Denver and are training at Erie Airpark.
Paragraph 3 on page 1-3 states that this airport provides a base for local corpo-
rate aircraft. This is true but only two jet aircraft (Learjet) are based here
and they have already announced they will be moving off the Greeley-Weld
County Airport, not because of inadequate runways but because of poor service
and the lack of maintenance on what we already have. If you doubt this state-
ment, I ask you to contact Monfort's chief pilot, Mr. John Warrender.
On the same page at paragraph 4 is a statement that based on total operations,
Greeley-Weld County Airport is the third busiest airport in Colorado. I am sure
you already know this to be a false statement. This statement was based on an
aircraft count taken in years past and was false even when the airport had over
200 students. The report that the Greeley-Weld County Airport had 180,000
operations annually and was moving closer to 200,000, is ridiculous. Please note
that this would amount to one operation every three minutes, 24 hours a day,
365 days a year. There was a true independent count made in February of this
year and I am enclosing a copy of that count. Please note this was done only
during daylight hours and only on good weather days--resulting in only 35.7% of
the above-reported figures. If there is that much discrepancy in the two re-
ports, I think this gross error should be thoroughly checked out before any-
thing else is considered. It doesn't take much time spent at the Greeley-Weld
County Airport to determine there is not an operation every three minutes--even
on its best days.
In the first full paragraph on page 1-5, the statement is made that a proposal
for expanding Runway 17/35 was rejected in the public review process. The
public rejection of this plan was based on the belief that the expansion was too
expensive and not needed at this time. There has been a decline in business at
the Greeley-Weld County Airport since then. In addition, there has been no
development on the east side of Greeley, where the airport is located, to warrant
this expansion. What little growth Greeley has experienced, has been primarily
to the west which is closer to the Loveland/Ft. Collins airport.
The FAA and cities of Loveland and Ft. Collins have spent the monies to expand
that airport to take care of any needs of the aviation industry which may de-
velop west of Greeley. Why waste money to expand another airport only 20 miles
away and on the wrong side of Greeley? If there is doubt about the feeling of
the general public in this matter, I ask you to contact the Airport Users or local
residents living around the airport.
One page 1-6 at the first indented paragraph, mention is made of the acquisition
of 315 acres of land. This is 315 acres of the best farm land in Weld County
and should not be destroyed for the purpose of constructing more airport run-
way when there are many other possibilities.
Refer on the same page to the third indented paragraph regarding the closing of
County Roads 64 and 64i. That action will create a tremendous burden to the
farmers in that area.
Page 2
At page 2-9 in the third indented paragraph, I quote, "This is the most cost-
effective alternative of those considered." The estimated cost of building the
runway and bridging Bliss Road is only part of the cost but it is the only cost
which has been considered in this plan.
But, let's look at the whole picture. The terminal building will have to be
replaced--it cannot be moved because of the nature of it's construction. There
are two hangars which are in the clear zone and according to the reports we
have received, the FAA has no plans to grant any waiver on existing struc-
tures. Therefore those buildings will have to be moved and there is a new
30'x 60' pavilion which will have to be moved. Also the fuel farm will have to be
relocated. The land proposed for the terminal building and the ramp area is
over an old city dump. This area would have to be compacted. That alone
could be a major expense.
With all of these additions to the estimated cost of building this runway, this
expansion could cost upwards of 15 to 20 million dollars. And, this is the main
reason for the public rejection of the last proposal. So instead of wasting
anymore time and money on this, let's use the monies to maintain the facilities
and equipment we already have. It should be very obvious with just a quick
look around the Greeley-Weld County Airport, that it is badly in need of repair
and maintenance. If we can't maintain what we have now, how in the world will
be maintain a much larger facility in this planned expansion?
Thank//�� you,
,-7447--;"
Robert M. Kell , Member
Greeley-Weld County Airport Authority Board
RMK:mp
cc: Bill Theisen
ENSR Consulting & Engineering
Kevin Bunnell, Airport Manager
Greeley-Weld County Airport
Page 3
April 3. 1994
The contents of this letter are to be distributed to all of the
-- following:
1 . Weld County Commissioners
_ 2. Weld County Council
3. City of Greeley City Council
4 . Greeley-Weld County Airport Authority
Recently both the City Council and the County Commissioners voted to
support a proposed plan to expand and re-align the existing configura-
tion of the Greeley-Weld County Airport. This decision has resulted
in a study by users of the airport in an attempt to determine the
actual need of the project based on usage and future projections.
It appears that each time an airport manager is hired, the first item
on the agenda is to come up with his own version of an airport master
plan and to justify his plan based on the activity at the airport.
To count how many master plans have been presented, you only need to
count back the number of airport managers that have been hired. The
basis of every one of these plans has been the high traffic volume at
the airport and all the safety related issues that would go along with
a facility operating under these conditions. Over and over we have
been told that the Greeley-Weld County Airport is the third busiest
in the state, and the airport manager stated on a recent local tele-
_
vision show that the number of operations was approaching 200, 000 per
year .
Those of us who use the airport and who have been there long enough to
have been a part of the history of the airport, know this is utter
nonsense and is a total fabrication. Attempts to question their
figures have brought only ridicule and contempt so the only alternative
remaining was to conduct a totally independent survey. To do this a
count was conducted for a period of ten days. The test was conducted
only during perfectly clear flying weather and with surface winds of
less than 10 knots. As with any survey, these figures represent only
a snapshot of a given period of time and the numbers are then projected
to provide reasonably accurate annual results.
The results of this count are enclosed for your consideration. In
view of these results it is hoped that the Council and the County
Commissioners wi].]. re-evaluate the decision to support this expensive
ill-conceived project . We look forward to additional dialogue with
these entities before proceeding with furth r actin
W e White
The count was conducted only on days when the airport was operating
under visual flight rules and the persons conducting the count were
advised that should the weather deteriorate, or the wind exceed
approximately 10 knots, the count should be terminated for the day.
The count was conducted on weekends and on various days of the week.
The days the count was conducted and the hours counted are as follows:
Day Date Operations Hours Avg. per hour
Saturday 2/19/94 239 12 19.9
Wednesday 2/23/94 87 8 10.8
Thursday 2/24/94 56 12 4.6
Sunday 2/27/94 173 12 14.4
Monday 2/28/94 54 9 6.0
Tuesday 3/01/94 133 12 11 .0
Friday 3/04/94 202 12 16.8
Saturday 3/05/94 361 12 30.0
Sunday 3/13/94 229 12 19.0
Wednesday 3/16/94 27 4 6.8
If we break the above numbers down into a daily average, we will use
the numbers based on a 12-hour period of time. This method produces
the following results:
8 full 12 hour days=1507 operations or 188.4 per day. Pro-
jected for the year this would produce 68, 756 operations or
37 . 7 percent of the operations used to justify the master
plan.
If we break the count down even further and use an hourly average, we
then use all the figures shown above and make our projection based on
12 hours per day - 365 days per year. This method produces the fol-
lowing results:
105 hours=1561 operations or an average of 14. 86 per hour.
Projected for 365 days would be 65,086 operations or 35.7
percent of the operations used to justify the master plan.
It should be noted at this point that we have included two full week-
ends which has inflated the count substantially so the above percentage
are more than likely well on the high side.
No attempt was made to factor in certain numbers to reflect night
operations nor was any attempt made to reduce the numbers in any way
to provide for days of inclement weather when there are few, if any,
operations. We feel we are more than fair in this regard as bad
weather and high wind cancellations would far exceed the number of
night operations. To recap the count on a daily average shows the
following:
Saturday 300 or 25 per hour
Sunday 201 or 16. 75 per hour
Monday 54 or 6 per hour
Tuesday 133 or 11 per hour
Wednesday 87 or 9. 5 per hour
Thursday 56 or 4 .6 per hour
Friday 202 or 16.8 per hour
Method number 1 (Daily count) produces 68,796 as opposed to 182, 000
Method number 2 (Hourly projection) produces 65,086 as opposed to
182,000.
L Lu
Date 5/it1:trI
Hours I t • ICI Hours Hours Hours
Count By If\,. . 1 F'L.' (Count By Count By County By
14 •
SINGLE ENGINE TWIN ENGINE JETS
TIME LANDING TAKEOFF TOUCH LANDING TAKEOFF TOUCH LANDING TAKEOFF TO...:H
N'GO N'GO N'GO
6:00
6:30 1
1 _
7:00 \ t
7:30 I I'
8:00 II II
8:30 I I
9:00 I
9:30 11\
1 I _
10:00 I
10:30
11:00
11:30
12:00
12:30
1:00
1:30
2:00
2:30
3:00
3:30
4:00
4:30
5:00
5:30
6:00
C.--k---,
— Date 3 :3/9 r -,-2-1
\ LD-12.0 Hours Jc_O-6aoo Hours Hours
\ Count By LL�Count Byi Count By County By
59 14 ItLf 4 0 v
SINGLE ENGINE 36 TWIN ENGINE JETS •
TIME LANDING TAKEOFF TOUCH LANDING TAKEOFF TOUCH LANDING TAKEOFF TOUCH
N'OO N•GO N'GO
6:00
6:30
7:00
7:30- 8:00 III
I
8:30 11 II
_ - 6:001(11 u
9:30 II R 11 \ 11
1�
10:00 il,I I 111 II
10:30 10:30 I llll II
11:00 III .1 \\I rl
11:30 III III!
heliebpr,
12:00 /III
.1111 1f I J I
12:30 /// NT
-. 1:001Iii 1119 Ill) I -
1:30 III MI I
2:00 aft. II III] It
�
2:30 if jw. �'It
3:00 l
.0 III 1I (iW.rrorrrt;)
3:30 /ill 1/11 I/1 I
-
4:00 /HI �i Icy{ H I
/4:30 {I Vt•I I II I L
5:00 / I I ii g
5:30 /i I • I(SCI
6:00
r
Date ---)':"..)/ % •
Ham ti• ..../ Ham Hours Hours --
Count --
CountBy (J.,1_,(.:,;"';" ' ,'\ /count Count By Count By County By
94
• iii 14l 39 y f 2 —
SINGLE ENGINE TWIN ENGINE JETS
TIME LANDING TAKEOFF TOUCH LANDING TAKEOFF TOUCH LANDING TAKEOFF TOUCH
N'GO N'GO N`sO
0:00I
9:30
7:00
7:30
0:00 i II Ii -
9:30 li,. 1 ': ,
I •
t
9:00 ilk,
9:30 1i'I'I ,, ,i,• i II -
•
10:00 I 'Iti I.I I I i.
10:30 I '','; iiiI ,.
11:00 t. ,,,II , _\ \.
11:30 \\1 1
12:00 \'
N I ti ` I I _
12:30 4: I I: \1 O, III i iii
1:00 7v ' ;( \ 1,•\ I I -
1:30 If,i
2:00 III. I.. - ' •
'•
I. ..
2:30 Iiv: III _ -
3:00 , II I
3:30 1('`!I
1
� ' I1 III
.�.._...... __..-_ 4:00 i I I ' iii! - -•4:30I 1 .
5:00 ' I I -
5:30
0:00
St
' /7.54t
O818_� � ✓p1
/
Hours b' If Hours Hours Hours
Count By Lk. mile IUY(''I Count By 1 Count By County By
36 O;ql <<(l'inyi dt a 0 y S
SINGLE ENGINE y1 TWIN ENGINE Y JETS
TIME LANDING TAKEOFF TOUCH LANDING TAKEOFF TOUCH LANDING TAKEOFF TOUCH
N'GO N'00 N'GO
6:00 / /
6:90 I
7:00 I I
7:30 I
8:00 1 ( ,
8:30 I 1 I I
9:00 I II
9:30 I I
10:00 II III
10:30 Al III I I
I U)
11:00 1111 1111 it 111 II helicopkr'
'
11:30 1. II
'(U
12:00111 II 111 II Iilir- . „ V.
I
12:3011 III
1:001\ II I�NW�
I .1
,1:30 \\\\ ,\\ I
2:00 ' IITI \I I :>
2:901 I i\ \ 1 ,q -
9:00 \ f
�1I L (I)
9:30 I III 'RI I kt`I(C')�..{
"` fff ( I)
4:00 i--
01 I 11^1:(°I'''V,
4:30011 I II
5:00 I) III I I I
b:30 `t ' I
8:00
I ieV aacp
Date c )///4< I '3)
Hours ,f/I HouR Hours
Count By l�i'`' 'I� �1VLuntBy Noun
Ca,m By County By
31
31 SINGLE ENGINE 0.1 J 3 t 1
TWIN ENGINE JETS
TIME LANDING TAKEOFF TOUCH LANDING TAKEOFF TOUCH LANDING TAKEOFF TOUCH
N'GO N'GO WOO
6:30 .I _
7:007:30
8:30
0:00�, •I_ -_ _
0:30
10:00 I n1
10:90
11:00 1
12:30 II I I
1:00 Ill
1:30
2:00 ,
2:30
9:00
4:00 I1 1
4:30
5:00 I I I
5:30 I I l -
C llUICL/,
-� L'7--y Date
Hours O- Hours Hours Hours
Count By !/0.l,{)/1,O)!O Count By • Count By County By
v z8
I I
Iv SINGLE ENGINE I'{ TWIN ENGINE JETS
TIME LANDING TAKEOFF TOUCH LANDING TAKEOFF TOUCH LANDING TAKEOFF TOUCH
N'GO N'OO N'GO
6:00
6:30
7:00
7:30 1
6:00 II
6:30
. 9:00 . .-.
9:30
10:00+ III
10:30 1
11:00 C 6 V-1,+"(.,
11:30 1
I 12:00
� i r
12:30 I
1:00(11 1 ?}loll V G c
1:30,1
2:00 ll
2:30 1
_ I 1
3:00
3:30
4:00
4:30
5:00
5:30
6:00
Date bit-2 f r
Hours — . L Hours it .i L & Hours Hours
Court By • Count By /' I 1 C ! Count By County By
0
S0 41
SINGLE ENGINE 31 TWIN ENGINE JETS _
TIME LANDING TAKEOFF TOUCH LANDING TAKEOFF TOUCH LANDING TAKEOFF TL./CH
N'GO N'GO N'GO
e:oo
0:30
7:00
7:30 /
8:0o l
8:30 11
0:00 11 \1I I -
9:3011 1111 ►111 '
10:00 f I I I Ilk lul -
10:30 111 ill µl
11:00 I 11,11 II I
I'ry
11:30 1111 IIII Itit
12:00 riti 1 U I
1 12:30 I I I
_ 1:00 I II XL nil I! _
r..
1:901111 II l
�\ 2:001 111 I - �-
\ 2:3o i It 1111 `IC
-.
._.. ---•••..3:aa II I I
3:30 II
4:00 1111 I III
.:30 I I -
5:00 ( -
5:30 I 1
0:00 I -
-Ft
Date 2 24 ' S:?;
Hours LY- P Hours Hours Hours
Coma By IA b IA II N IUYIC{ Count By Count By County By
14
tl SINGLE ENGINE II 4 TWIN ENGINE 1 1 JETS
TIME LANDING TAKEOFF TOUCH LANDING TAKEOFF TOUCH LANDING TAKEOFF TOUCH
N'GO N'GO N'GO
6:00
8:30
7:00 '
7:30 I I l
8:00
8:30
8:00 I I +
9:30 1
10`°° 1 II �1 Hd eo ktl htlil'rptry
10:30 I I 11/
I 11:00 I I I
11:30 1 I
12:00 \
12:30
1:00 i\I
1:30 jl 1
2:00 I 1)
2:30 1
3:00
3:30
4:00
4:30 I
8:00
5:30
6:00
Date i�6.23vs,
17
Hours Hams Ham Hours
Count By • Count By Count By County By
L' L3 3Y y. lJ
SINGLE ENGINE l`1 r TWIN ENGINE I JETS
TIME LANDING TAKEOFF TOUCH LANDING TAKEOFF TOUCH LANDING TAKEOFF •UCH
N'GO N'GO N'GO
6:00
6:30
7:00
7:30
6:00
6:30
9:oo
6:30
10:00
I _
10:30
Ii 11:00
11:30 II II _ 1
12:00 I'
12:30 I
1:00 111 III
1:30 I/II I I
2:00 LI I It II
2:30 (( I _
3:00 II II
9:30 I
4:00
4:30 I I
6:00 (II
6:30 I
6:00
Date 0//4/r I t__
-- Hours 1/—it:.Jll pours�40 Hours Hours
Count By 1U.l.()1!/Q)(C/CountBy W�C-a`r Count By County By
_ 1py 6'� 9 C a V
SINGLE ENGINE 9 5 4 TWIN ENGINE 2 JETS
TIME LANDING TAKEOFF TOUCH LANDING TAKEOFF TOUCH LANDING TAKEOFF TOUCH
N'GO N'GO N'GO
9:00
•
- 8:30
7:00
_. .' 7:30
8:00
8:30 I I I
9:00 le ptrIII(
9:30 1/II or I I
10:00 OW/
II X/
10:30 'nit
I1�� l III 1
11:00 /4.77 tt I II II I • ., ..
'��i1�y� �X
11:30 tiff LW Intl III I
12:00 11
I'I} I .I
12:30 fit11} IUY 1 III I .
ll /'rU
1:00 In i 4III II I
1:30 11 ly(I I
2:00 1],r/ / an
l� I I
_ 2:30 1/ t I
3:00 aI)) II I
3:30 ( I I P
4:00 III II III
4:30 (III #Nr I
5:00 III I
5:30
8:00
O • aj:1•
OFFICE OF SOARO OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PHONE ao3i 350-1300.e7IT.•2C
- ■ PAX 003i302•0742
P.O.BOX lee
.111
GREELEY.COLORADO 6000:
COLORADO •
April 29. 1994
Wayne White
2102 27th Avenue
Grimier. CO 00031
Dear Mr. Whites
Your April 3. 1994, latter concerning the Greeley-Veld County Airport has been
reviewed by the Weld County commissioners 5n4 City of Greeley. The city end
county appraeiate year coneams and efforts regarding the airport.
Your,basio premise for re-evaluation of the decision of All three Entities is
cantered on the issue of the master plan justification being based solely upon
the volume of traffic or operations.
•
Current air traffic volume er capacity was only ono of many considerations
leading to the approval of the new master plan.
The master plan was approved to improve safety and capability of the airport as
wall to air trettic capacity. Governing beard members were convinced and 0111
believe that the 0.200-foot length of Runway 9/27 is too abort to accommodate a
large percentage et Out jet aircraft fleet needing to utilise the airport,
especially during the summer months. The 3.600-foot length of Runway 17/39 is
completely inadaepats to accsnonodatr any jet aircraft wars. Larger business
aircraft most be accommodated if the current and future potential of the airport
is to be achieved.
The ability to provide a safe airport with the capability to accommodate large
business aircraft will ultimately serve the eomemity's transportation needs more
fully and increase the potential to encourage new business to develop in the
airport. as well as all of the Greeley/veld County area. We appreciate the fact
that the airport master plan calls !or a major investment by the damsunity. in
approving the master plan, we feel it is a good investment to accommodate current
and future needs for the community.
Pegs t April 29, 1994
wales whits
mopatisly, this Glorifies ur positionssend
reasons foe
nl approve).
). of the settee
pion chat go far bey
eery truly yes. •
Mister. Cps roan
Weld County DOMMitiiiMote
en J. MD Ycr
City of Creels
cct Den Warden •
STATE OF COLORADO
DIVISION OF PARKS AND OUTDOOR RECREATION
Colorado Natural Areas Program
1313 Sherman Street,Rm.618
Denver,Colorado 80203 C0tSRa00
Phone(303)866-3437 ./
FAX 1303) 866-3206
��
August 1, 1994
Roy Romer
Governor
Laurie A.Mathews
Mr. Bill Theisen, Project Manager Director
ENSR Consulting and Engineering
1716 Heath Parkway Mmes D Von Loh
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524 Program Administrator
Ken Salazar
Director/DNR
Dear Mr. Theisen:
Thank you for contacting the CNAP for information concerning the
Greeley-Weld County Airport Environmental Assessment. We do not
have any specific information pertaining to this site in our
files.
We encourage you to contact the Colorado Natural Heritage
Program: Ms. Katie Pague, Information Manager, 303/492-4719 and
the Colorado Division of Wildlife: Northeast Region, 303/484-
2836. Both of these agencies may have site-specific information
that will help to guide your assessment effort.
Sincerely,
/
James D. Von Loh, Administrator
Colorado Natural Areas Program
Colorado Natural Areas Council
Robert R.Kelley,Member•Helen Traylor,Member
Jose Trujillo,Colorado Board of Parks and Outdoor Recreation
Tina Jones,Member♦Louis Swift,Colorado Wildlife Commission
Alden Naranjo,Member♦John Wilkes,Colorado Board of Land Commissioners Printed on recycled paper.
STATE OF COLORADO REFER TO:
Roy Romer,Governor
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES cot
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE t •
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER /
Perry D.Olson, Director NORTHEAST REGIONAL OFFICE %
6060 Broadway 317 West Prospect OF "
Denver,Colorado 80216 Fort Collins, Colorado 80526 For Wildlife-
Telephone: (303)297.1192 (303)484-2836 For People
August 3, 1994
Mr. Bill Theisen
1716 Heath Parkway
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
Dear Mr. Theisen:
Your letter of July 20 finally circled the world and arrived back here in Fort
Collins. This is in response to being late for your request.
It is assumed the area outlined in the drawing for the runway extension is the
area that you need information for.
Presently, the area is all in cultivated crops that consist of sugar beets, beans,
corn, carrots, and onions. The exception is for the county roads and farmsteads.
Negative impacts to wildlife is rather minimal for most species. Pheasant would
have a small negative impact such as summer cover habitat, resulting from tall crops
such as corn. This can be compensated by plantings such as legumes in the non-
runway areas. If we can be of further assistance, please advise us.
Sinc ely,
D -n BOgart
Environmen Biologist
cc: R. Moss
L. Rogstad
K. Kinney
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES,lames S.Lochhead, Executive Director
WILDLIFE COMMISSION,Thomas M. Eve-Chairman, Louis F. Swift-Vice Chairman, Arnold Salazar-Secretary,
Jesse Boyd-Member, Eldon W.Cooper-Member, Rebecca Frank-Member,William R.Hesberg-Member, Mark LeValley-Member
.T�li. UNITED COTES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTE ION AGENCY
(44_,r,,, REGION VIII
999 18th STREET - SUITE 500
Rol DENVER, COLORADO 80202-2466
AUG 3 1994
Ref: BAT-TS
Mr. Bill Theisen
Project Manager
ENSR
1716 Heath Parkway
Fort Collins, CO 80524
RE: FOIA (8)RIN-1071-94
Dear Mr. Theisen:
This letter is in response to your Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA) request dated July 20, 1994 . Our data records search
under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) , and the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) , is based on
site or facility name. We have no way to search our files for
information on a property on the legal description alone.
Therefore, we are unable to provide the information you request.
If you have any further questions or can provide a facility
name please contact Rose Bell of my staff at 293-1770 .
Sincerely,
C. Alvin Yorke, Chief
Toxic Substances Branch
Printed on Recycled Paper
• \ Untied States Department of the -nterior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
-- Ecological services
Colorado Field Office
730 Simms Street,Suite 290
Golden,Colorado 80401
IN REPLY REFER TO:
Mr. Bill Theisen AUG 0 3 1994
Project Manager
ENSR
1716 Heath Parkway
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
Dear Mr. Theisen:
In response to your request of July 20, 1994, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is
providing the following information. This information is intended to assist in preparation of
an Environmental Assessment (EA) for expansion of the Greeley-Weld Airport.
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES
To comply with Section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended,
Federal agencies or their designees are required to obtain from the Service information
concerning any species or critical habitat, listed or proposed to be listed, which may be
present in the area of influence for the proposed action. Therefore, we are furnishing you
the following list of species which may be present in the concerned area:
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Black -footed ferret Mustela nigripes
Ute ladies'-tresses orchid Spiranthes diluvialis
The lead Federal agency should evaluate the potential impacts of the proposed action and
determine if it may affect any listed species. If a determination is "may affect" for listed
species, the Federal agency must request in writing formal consultation from this office and
should provide this office with a biological assessment and any other relevant information
used in making impact determinations.
Section (7c) of the Act requires that the Federal agency proposing a major Federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment conduct and submit to the
Service a biological assessment to determine effects of the proposal on listed species. The
biological assessment shall be completed within 180 days after the date on which initiated or
a time mutually agreed upon between the agency and the Service. The assessment must be
completed before physical project modification/alteration begins. If the biological assessment
is not begun within 90 days, the species list above should be verified prior to initiation of the
assessment.
Mr. Bill Theisen 2
The Service would like to bring to your attention species which are candidates for official
listing as threatened or endangered species . While these species presently have no legal
protection under the Act, it is within the spirit of the Act to consider project impacts to
potentially sensitive candidate species. Additionally, we wish to make you aware of the
presence of Federal candidates should any be proposed or listed prior to the time that all
Federal actions related to the project are completed.
CANDIDATE SPECIES
White-faced ibis Plegadis chihf
Western snowy plover Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus
Mountain plover Charadrius montanus
Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus
Black tern Chlidonas niger
Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis
Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus
Preble's meadow
jumping mouse Zapus hudsonius preblei
Swift fox Vulpes velox
Regal fritillary butterfly Speyeria idalia
Plains topminnow Fundulus sciadicus
Colorado butterfly weed Gaura neomexicana spp coloradensis
Showy prairie gentian Eustoma grandiflorum
Dwarf milkweed Asclepias uncialis
WETLAND AND RIPARIAN AREAS
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). We recommend that any adverse impacts to
wetlands within the project influence be avoided.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide ENSR with this information. The Service looks
forward to receiving a copy of the draft EA for review and comment as well as your
determination regarding impacts to listed species. If this office can be of any assistance,
please contact Bill Noonan at 303-231-5280.
Sincere
Wgpz/g"----
Roy W. Carlson
Colorado ield Supervisor
Mr. Bill Theisen 3
cc: CDOW, Ft. Collins (Attn: Don Bogart)
File
Reading File
gggems UNITED '-'ATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTr `'ION AGENCY
A) REGION VIII
999 18th STREET - SUITE 500
DENVER, COLORADO 80202-2466
'AUG ° 1994
Ref: 8WM-C
Bill Theisen
Project Manager
ENSR Consulting and Engineering
1716 Heath Parkway
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
Re: FOIA Request (8)RIN-1071-94
Dear Mr. Theisen:
This is in response to your request of July 20, 1994, made
under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) . The Water
Management Division has no information on the land which includes
a portion of Section 2, Township 5 North, Range 65 West, and
portions of Sections 26 and 35, Township 6 North, Range 65 West.
There is no charge for this search.
'ncerely,
a*.ititin/Steve A. Burkett, Chief
NPDES Branch
Water Management Division
OPrinted on Recycled Paper
e�""a. UNITED ST TES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC' IN AGENCY
(Fa)
REGION VIII
999 18th STREET - SUITE 500 mai DENVER, COLORADO 80202-2466
Ref: 8HWM-SM
AUG 9 INA
Mr. Bill Theisen
ENSR Consulting & Engineering
1716 Heath Parkway
Fort Collins, CO 80524 .
Re: Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
Request # (8)RIN-1071-94
Dear Mr. Theisen:
In response to your letter dated July 20, 1994, reference
# 3797-006-100, we are enclosing a CERCLIS Site/Event Listing (L-
8) for Greeley, Colorado. Also enclosed is a list of
abbreviations to assist you in your evaluation. Should you need
further information, you may request specific documentation by
writing to Louise Wiley, FOIA Officer, at the address listed
above.
The Hazardous Waste Branch has no specific information on
their Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) database
pertaining to your request. If you have any questions, please
contact Phil Pierre-Louis at (303) 293-1508 .
Please note, the State of Colorado is authorized to
implement the hazardous waste program in Colorado and may have
further information on this matter. They may be reached at:
Colorado Department of Health
Hazardous Waste Control Program (HMWMD-HWC-B2)
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, CO 80220-1530
Phone (303) 692-3300
The Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) List for
the Cit y of Greeley is enclosed. Please note that this list is
an initial notification only and is unverified data. If you have
any questions regarding this list, please contact Michael Thorne
at (303) 391-6079 .
The Solid Waste Section of the Waste Management Branch
maintains no documents pertaining to active or inactive landfills
in Colorado. Such information should be obtained from:
Colorado Department of Health
Solid Waste and Incident Management Section
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, Colorado 80222-1530
Printed on Recyobd Paper
Any Underground Storage Tanks/Leaking Underground Storage
Tanks (UST/LUST) information on specific sites in Colorado is
available at:
Scott Winters, Storage Tank Section Chief
HMWMD-SWIM-B2
Colorado Department of Health
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, Colorado 80222-1530
Telephone: (303) 692-3453
or
Dick Piper, Director
Oil Inspection Section
Department of Health & Environmental Sciences
1001 E. 62nd Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80216
Telephone: (303) 289-5644
If you have any questions regarding the CERCLIS L-8 report,
please call (303) 294-1152 .
There is no fee for providing you with this information
since the total cost of processing your request is less than $25.
Sincerely,
i /
Carol L. Campbell, Chief
Superfund Management Branch
Enclosures
r .
0
Z
n
t.
v
W f z %
=Cr ~
Z
>weelt CC JWI-
W S F O(J( :I.
Z O W
O N Mcc O VIZ NW w flyc € WNO
w 2 W-IW<�+Y On.
Nc CSw 3254611:
h I.IM06C
W 0.000 O. 3 S t Z 0 6
W NY<<WIC W_ZOOG< cc ce1W t-ti- wY <
tYWtY Z Z f N N t,
w\W01MpWW MOWw<VI 0SJI- W>2.iac,{r1.Ipy
. )-N WOWC>FEW C�'I OLWJJC
NWM Z >>OCCCl i
>0 <W Z F W p-I`6 J W L J o o <
wwwwWMOXic
C <.......
C 0 W II N N N II II N N 11 N N N N N II N N II N N II 11 N 11 II N
8V<# W WOWCOOWWWWWWW<OY.Z O`punZOONN.
,7, Z ..cuuowwwu.W WNti J=zo m...OC HfS
C
N J i-
0.,..
L
W
_
J J W W
W \ N
f¢W it-
h >W.� O O
N
<U
MM
>
f
N y W ZH
0)
O a v a W
N y
gp co
W
t w me.
Z
El
J
= >tauw
W w> v Z WO
Z I w f N JJ < I W
y I "Zr-- a f_0. o>oJ'��=+e�
W VINGO .�f W>=lyt
w W KwwCNZIO- Si ¢.5ny
¢ p F61JPI<
Y<ff < Jft
O U a W>ZZWW WZOO
W W I r< W«<
Z<CJY> 0n»
p
WI I w UJWW.«O.<WIJ 1122E
L
111 W NWHYf O.N OpCZJ CO
O f I IY p f N N W W ZI Z f W o C a W W W
Z w w W 1 I II II II N 11 II N N II N 11 O N 11 11 II N
o 0 > I 61 N<MfUN6'ffoW ZW KO:tc>
t):
• Z W O 1 O f N N W N S Z Z Z Z a
U M
W
J J co
W<W
Nell a
U< W
Z W Z
O f N
N W
> >a
<# J
=#m< w
C, a;;; W
Z O wf N
O......W
>w J>
f WOW U
O J W
cum W
N c
0 W
O Z
f f
W
r<<
Z z C O c_0 c_z 0 0 0 O OZ o O C
W J Z Z Z MO Z=Z
F J W W 0 6 =O O O• 0•0
WH ••-••-• ..•W v vv LL v -v
W Z F v W W v
W W W MW WC WC <<< << <<<
O FEZ OW 66 •e 666 6f 61 6
6OF U WSW{ WW W
ppW ppW ppW�N} BAR
W�G,ryWW
_ w< <a \ \ \\\ \- \�\
0 0 O 6 W Mr O O O 0 0 O w r
Z H per\ p\p.-ry- \.y.�..\y-� tmo p\mp\gyp\
6 6 t OO C 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0
00
6 6
J J J
w W <=I 3WW
F-
d•W r<1-
WW We<
U U COO
O O ZOZ
J J
6 6 6
F r
U U U
< < <
J a a
Z 0 5 5 r
66 2 W W W
Y
. . W W W
d a
Z N
00 Z Z J 3 6
w 7 W 8< - 3 =
.- >J> p Q6
6 V W Z W 2 Z
0 J w y W 6 r r r r
re-
0w
j T N< N< N<M 6 N< WC
S W N W 0 6 0 6 0 6 N N an. 0•a.
i*e <�•[ p 8 8 8 p
* N#m CJI O 8
a.
0
= J .4 r �ryOp� app u. "� 1�/Qp� aIn
pp
r
al
0 fq (Q a
$ 19 W
-1J O 0
<g U U < U U U
N OU 0
a
0
u
u
Zf-. J 6 6
4 ZN�•n W O
O a
\••
� 0< Z66 < W <P.}} J
N N O <Z Z U h Z ISC
MNM {t WOO r < J> O� H
NON it W 011 2F 0 <N C _J< 0 Si- O WN a
-
VWW a < YVY1 L. VO _W OS W AWI- W WOW WOW
<W It W F00 W3W W.,W' W >3 0W3 0W3
0- U< W W Z N N J J J r J J J I-r J H J
.5 WZ i-5 JNN WOW W W WNW F W frW
P W W 6 F m O<< W N W M W J W M W M W n8.,M (My j„.,
eCCQ {N[ - J NNUUvv 00Wr 0NWr 0$Wr 6NOr a.V O�lr
0 0 0 # N <
8g8 v 0
in ryM r (0
.00• P 0 r C .ppt��
Zp A O
W €W g
0JJl-I VW H 0 p.
UUN WJ Z 8000 p
...> NON W W V IJ Pjb U V
N
Z C 46 L6
Z_J 3
W Hcc Z
W W W W f<
6<r V 3. W N
O.Oi- A
W Wt eD ODD
6 m J= 1'8
m u it t ..0.-
00
f r U a
«
a a
J J t F
W W
C C r<H
W W 44<N C
Y Y
C
J
0
I—
•-•
at
c
r r
a CC H c
IC 8S M m
W
▪ 6 J r
ZpZp 0N
....zn.•Z INC =
>8 ,6
CC W J> W Z
W 6' W F
0..0. W Z W
O J 6'I- W6 rr
K y W CO W I- CO.
*66VcC
.• jy
# W 40 m 2I
I— l 8
a J
444 N O
O J
Cl. •
.1- n.
N Ntu 0
C
F V
N V
W W
Cf-.
QC w C
v y ZN••4
P C J J 6
C•• Z66 Z
COnl MI an <Z Z 0
M n W C C
M O N } C W W W
N i4 la uMM IN a
W W
r C <W Z H Y V Oat V 3.C W 3
r 01- V<_ WW)ZNN V<J
PWW a. •y H•.••0«4.43 VI J1-W VI
in Ile IV
r C C W y 3
J Hanna Y V v v C w
O
COm m a in <
0otk«g
u.iZ 0 Z €
OJJ•-• •~.•W IN-
V V N W J
O LLI 4C CI
C 0 44> NN W W V
EMERGENCY RESPONSE NOTIFICATION SYSIEII Page: 1
- EPA REGION VIII FOIA(8) RIN-1071-94 REPORT RUN DATE & TIME: 08/02/94 13:03:55
DATA SEARCH ON REPORTED SPILLS FOR THE CITY OF GREELEY, COLORADO
NOTE: INITIAL AY)TIFICATIOI OILY- - WWVRIFIED DATA
Date Spilled: 08/21/81 Spitler: HUSKY OIL CO Material: GASOLINE
ERNS Case #: 81361 Location: 2324 23RD AVE Quantity: 30 Gallons
County: WELD City/State: GREELEY, CO
— Date Spilled: 12/29/81 SpilLer: WESTERN TANK LINES Material: GASOLINE
ERNS Case #: 81535 Location: 2455 S: 11TH Quantity: 100 Gallons
County: WELD City/State: GREELEY, CO
Date Spilled: 04/21/82 Spitler: CALVIN OIL & GAS Material: CRUDE
ERNS Case #: 82203 Location: 71 ST AVE & RIVER Quantity: 500 Gallons
County: WELD City/State: GREELEY, CO
Date Spilled: 11/08/82 Spitler: CHEVRON USA Material: NO. 2 FUEL
ERNS Case #: 82528 Location: RR CROSSING IN GREELEY,CO Quantity: 25 Gallons
County: WELD City/State: GREELEY, CO
Date Spilled: 04/27/83 Spitler: ASAMERA OIL (U.S.) INC Material: GASOLINE
ERNS Case #: 83260 Location: 2515 10TH STREET Quantity: 50 Gallons
County: WELD City/State: GREELEY, CO
Date Spilled: 06/23/83 Spitler: GREELEY TREATMENT PLANT Material: SEWAGE
ERNS Case #: 83358 Location: Quantity: 0 Gallons
County: WELD City/State: GREELEY, CO
Date Spilled: 02/10/84 Spitler: SHARPS HUSKY STATION Material: N0. 2 FUEL
ERNS Case #: 84108 Location: 2803 10TH ST Quantity: 150 Gallons
County: WELD City/State: GREELEY, CO
Date Spilled: 09/05/84 Spitler: BIGHORN TRUCKS Material: HAZ MATERIALS-SEE FORM
ERNS Case #: 84641 Location: I 25 AT MEAD EXIT Quantity: 0 Pounds
County: WELD City/State: GREEL, CO
Date Spilled: 01/03/86 Spitler: STIENBECKER BROS TRUCKING Material: NO. 2 FUEL
ERNS Case #: 86006 Location: US BYPASS 85 & 8TH STREET, N BOUND LANE Quantity: 175 Gallons
County: WELD City/State: GREELEY, CO
Date Spilled: 07/08/86 Spitler: COORS PLANT Material: FUMES FROM BREWERY
ERNS Case #: 86475 Location: Quantity: 0 Gallons
County: WELD City/State: GREELEY, CO
Date Spilled: 11/26/86 Spitler: BRADY OIL CO. Material: UNLEADED GASOLINE
ERNS Case #: 86800 Location: 10TH ST & 28TH AVE Quantity: 250 Gallons
County: VELD City/State: GREELEY, CO
Date Spilled: 07/07/87 Spitler: JOHN BLEDSOE Material: XYLENE
ERNS Case #: 87439 Location: NORTH CO MEDICAL CENTER Quantity: 1 Gallons
County: WELD City/State: GREELEY, CO
Date Spilled: 07/17/87 Spitler: Material: ANSCO SOLVENT #1241 ONS
ERNS Case #: 87487 Location: NORWEST PUBLISHING Quantity: 100 Gallons
County: WELD City/State: GREELEY, CO
Date Spilled: 04/27/88 Spiller: CITY OF GREELEY/MIKE BECK Material: WWTP SLUDGE
ERNS Case #: 88421 Location: 1ST. AVE. & 4TH ST. Quantity: 40000 Gallons
County: WELD City/State: GREELEY, CO
Date Spilled: 03/03/90 Spitler: UNKNOWN Material: TRICHLOROETHYLENE
ERNS Case #: 900159 Location: 2414 17TH AVENUE Quantity: 5 Pounds
County: WELD City/State: GREELEY, CO
Date Spilled: 03/25/90 Spiller: TRI STATE COMMODITIES Material: OILS,DIESEL
ERNS Case #: 900218 Location: 214 3RD AVE./TRI STATE COMMODITIES Quantity: 150 Gallons
_ County: WELD City/State: GREELEY, CO 80634-
Date Spilled: 06/07/90 Spitler: MONFORT OF COLO-TRANSPORT DIV Material: TITANIUM DIOXIDE
ERNS Case #: 900441 Location: AA STREET/TRANSPORTATION DIVISION Quantity: 0.10 Unknown
County: WELD City/State: GREELEY, CO
BERGBtCY RESPONSE NOTIFICATION SYSTEM Page: 2
EPA REGION VIII FOIA(8) RIN-1071-94 REPORT RUN DATE & TINE: 08/02/94 13:03:55
DATA SEARCH ON REPORTED SPILLS FOR THE CITY OF GREELEY, COLORADO
NOTE: INITIAL NOTIFICATION ONLY— — LIWMIFIED MTA
Date Spilled: 06/05/90 Spitler: LUNDVALL OIL & GAS Material: OIL CONDENSATE
ERNS Case #: 900455 Location: AMES COMMUNITY COLLEGE/47TH & 20Th Quantity: 600 Gallons
County: VELD City/State: GREELEY, CO
Date Spilled: 10/29/90 Spitler: VAN WHY AND SONYS, INC. Material: UNKNOWN (MY BE WASTE OIL) —
ERNS Case #: 900891 Location: 1403 E 151 AVE. Quantity: Unknown
County: WELD City/State: GREELEY, CO 80631-
Date Spilled: 12/28/90 Spitler: COLORADO KENWORTH Material: CAUSTIC
ERNS Case #: 901050 Location: 2700 1ST AVENUE Quantity: 0.10 Unknown
County: WELD City/State: GREELEY, CO 80631-
Date Spilled: 05/20/91 Spitler: UNKNOWN Material: USED OIL AND TRANSMISSION FL.
ERNS Case #: 910459 Location: HOLIDAY VILLAGE-3102 17TH AVE. UNIT 117 Quantity: 70 Gallons
County: WELD City/State: GREELY, CO
Date Spilled: 06/25/91 Spitler: M & M TANK AND TOWER Material: USED MOTOR OIL
ERNS Case #: 910568 Location: 102 1/2 N 8TH AVENUE Quantity: 0.10 Unknown
County: WELD City/State: GREELEY, CO 80631-
Date Spilled: 07/08/91 Spitler: BATTERY MART Material: BATTERY ACID/LEAKING BATTERIE
ERNS Case #: 910618 Location: 115 N. 8TH AVE. _ Quantity: Unknown
County: WELD City/State: GREELEY, CO
•
Date Spilled: 08/06/91 Spitler: SCURLOCK PERMIAN CORP. Material: OIL: CRUDE
ERNS Case #: 910745 Location: ON HWY 49, 4 MILES E. OF GREELEY Quantity: 60 Barrels
County: WELD City/State: GREELEY, CO
Date Spilled: 06/03/92 Spitler: SCHEIB, RICHARD Material: FERTILIZER
ERNS Case #: 920616 Location: 22442 HWY 392 (3 MILES FROM LUCERNE, CO.) Quantity: Unknown
County: WELD City/State: GREELEY, CO 80631-
COMMENT: CALLER ALLEGED THAT FARMER IN AREA OPENS HEADGATE OF PRIVATE LAGOON, SPILLING WATER FROM LAGOON INTO CREEK. WATER IN LAGOON
MAY HAVE FERTILIZERS, ETC.
Date Spilled: 08/28/92 Spitler: WASTE MANAGEMENT Material: LANDFILL LEACHATE
ERNS Case #: 920843 Location: WASTE MANAGEMENT - GREELEY LANDFILL Quantity: Unknown
County: WELD City/State: GREELEY, CO
Date Spilled: 03/19/93 Spitler: RESIDENT Material: OILS,DIESEL : DIESEL OIL
ERNS Case #: 930251 Location: 2344 6TH AVE (APPROX 24TH ST & 6TH AVE.) Quantity: 50 Gallons
County: WELD City/State: GREELEY, CO
COMMENT: DIESEL ODORS. 10' X 150' AREA ALLEGEDLY AFFECTED. GREELEY-LOVELAND CANAL 600' AWAY - COULD POTENTIALLY REACH CANAL/DITCH.
Date Spilled: 04/16/93 Spitler: UNKNOWN Material: DRUMS - STRONG CHEMICAL SMELL
ERNS Case #: 930371 Location: 6170 W. 10TH Quantity: Unknown
County: WELD City/State: GREELEY, CO 80634-
COMMENT: ACCORDING TO CALLER, VERY STRONG CHEMICAL SMELL COMING FROM RESIDENCE - ALSO DRUMS ARE STORED AT LOCATION.
Date Spilled: 08/16/93 Spiller: Material: NATURAL GAS
ERNS Case #: 930802 Location: 2632 BUEANA VISTA DRIVE Quantity: Unknown
County: WELD City/State: GREELEY, CO 80631
Date Spilled: 09/28/93 Spitler: WESTERN FRAME & BODY WORKS Material: PAINT WASTE, CARBURATER CLEANER
ERNS Case #: 930974 Location: STREET ADDRESS UNKNOWN Quantity: Unknown
County: WELD City/State: GREELEY, CO
COMMENT: ALLEGED DUMPING OF PAINT WASTE INTO DUMPSTER, AND CARBURATER CLEANER DOWN DRAIN.
BOUNCY RESnGE IKITIFICATION SYSTEM Page: 1
EPA REGION VIII FOIA(B) RIN-1071-94 REPORT RUN DATE 6 TIME: 08/02/94 13:36:31
DATA SEARCH ON REPORTED SPILLS FOR THE CITY OF GREELEY, COLORADO, THROUGH APPROX 7/31/94
NOTE INITIAL NOTIFICATION ONLY— — UNVERIFIED MTA
Date Spilled: 06/13/94 Spitler: PLATT RIVER BI-PRODUCTS Material: AMMONIA, ANHYDROUS
ERNS Case #: 940577 Location: 616 G ST Quantity: 250 Gallons
County: WELD City/State: GREELEY, CO 80634
COLORADO NATURAL HER?"GE PROGRAM
cm University of Colorado Museum The
Hunter 115, Campus Box 315 Nature
Boulder, Colorado 80309-0315 conservancy
(303) 492-4719• Fax (303) 492-5105
August 10, 1994
Jon Alstad
ENSR Consulting and Engineering
1716 Heath Parkway
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Dear Mr. Alstad:
The Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) is in receipt of your recent request for
information regarding the Greeley-Weld County Airport Expansion Project. In response,
CNHP has searched it's Biological and Conservation Datasystem for natural heritage
resources (occurrences of significant natural communities and rare, threatened or
endangered plants and animals) documented from the boundaries indicated on the map
accompanying your request.
According to the information currently in our files, there are no occurrences of
significant natural communities or rare, threatened or endangered species documented
from within the project area. However, we have general records which document
occurrences of one rare plant and one rare mollusk in the vicinity of your site. Eustoma
russellianum (Showy prairie gentian) was documented near your project area in 1904,
and again in 1954. This rare plant is ranked globally common, but is rare to
uncommon in Colorado and is under review for federal listing.
Anodontoides ferussacianus (Cylindrical papershell) has also been documented in the
general vicinity of your project area. No date is available for this record. This rare
mollusk is ranked globally common, but is very rare in Colorado.
Although we do not have current records documenting these species within your project
boundaries, their historic presence in the area indicates the potential for them to found.
We recommend a survey be conducted for these rare species if suitable habitat exists on
your site. If you do conduct a survey for these or other species, we would appreciate
receiving copies of your fmdings, positive or negative. Updating our datasystem with
the most current and accurate information available allows us to provide the best
service possible to clients such as yourself.
A Conservation Data Center For Colorado
Renick,'Pam
While the information contained herein represents a thorough search of the CNHP's
Biological and Conservation Datasystem, any absence of data does not necessarily mean
that other natural heritage resources do not occur on or adjacent to the project site, but
rather that our files do not currently contain information to document their presence.
CNHP'sdatasystem is constantly growing and revised. Please contact CNHP for an
update on this natural heritage information if a significant amount of time passes before
it is utilized.
Sincerely,
v v
atherine E. Pague
Information Manager
STATE OF COLORADO
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. Box 850 a
Greeley,Colorado 80632-0850
(303)353-1232
Greeley-Weld Airport
Expansion/Draft EA
August 17, 1994
Mr. Bill Theisen
Project Manager
ENSR Consulting and Engineering
1716 Heath Parkway
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
Dear Mr. Theisen:
Your letter of July 20, 1994, regarding the Environmental
Assessment (EA) for expansion of the Greeley-Weld Airport has
been referred for action to the Region 4 office of the Colorado
Department of Transportation (CDOT) . The original version of
your letter was sent to Mr. Kim Gambrill in our Denver
Headquarters with a copy to Mr. P . R. McOllough, formerly of our
Region 1 office in Aurora. Please consider this letter as the
unified response to your request for comments by the CDOT.
There are several transportation related issues which we
recommend for consideration in the EA. One is the potential
impact of this airport expansion on State Highway 263. This
highway constitutes the southern boundary of the "General Study
Area" and provides vehicular access to the airport. The EA
should include an analysis of the traffic impact of the new
runway on the existing highway access to determine whether
physical improvements, such as turn lanes, may be necessary.
Another issue of concern is the relationship of the runway to
existing county roads. Bliss Road (Weld Co. Rd. 62) and Moody
Road (Weld Co. Rd. 64) are crossed by the land proposed for
acquisition. Construction of a runway across these roads would
need to be addressed in the EA and coordinated with Weld County.
There is also a Union Pacific Railroad line shown on the study
area map which crosses the north end of the acquisition area.
Although this may not be an active line, a determination of the
status of this right of way should be made. This issue must be
coordinated with the affected railroad.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this improvement project.
Please refer any further correspondence to this office for review
and comment.
ery r y yours,
ohn . Crier
CDOT Region 4
Planning/Environmental
Manager
cc: Kim Gambrill, CDOT Office of Environmental Services
Robin Geddy, CDOT Office of Environmental Services
Teresa Jones, Region 4 Development/Access Coordinator
File: Crier
STATE OF COLORADO
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
Division of Water Resources
Department of Natural Resources he'
1313 Sherman Street,Room 818 • ♦
Denver,Colorado 80203 •1876
Phone(303)866-3581
FAX(303)866-3589 Roy Romer
Governor
lames S.Lochhead
Exeunt..Director
August 18, 1994 HalStat D.Si
Engineer
Mr. Bill Theisen
ENSR Consulting and Engineering
1716 Heath Parkway
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Re: Expansion of Greeley-Weld County Airport
Dear Mr. Theisen:
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to provide comments on the Greeley-Weld County
Airport. The Division of Water Resources is responsible for water rights administration in the State.
As such, this agency is providing comments from the standpoint of protecting water rights.
Your letter of July 20, 1994 does not address whether any surface or ground water rights are
involved in the acquisition of land for the expansion of the airport. Therefore, we cannot comment
on potential impact on the existing water rights in the area. Two concerns that you need to address
for our agency and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment include:
1. The additional stormwater which may result from the expansion of the impervious
surface used for extending the runway should not be put to beneficial use but be
allowed to return to the natural stream in the drainage basin.
2. Chemicals and discharges associated with de-icing of aircraft should be pre-treated
in compliance with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
regulations.
Thank you for your cooperation. If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
7S-4 —a-3
Bahman Hatami, P.E.
Water Resources Engineer
CC: Alan Berryman, Division Engineer
bhupproj\airpi.pe
FNT-!
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
138 AIR CONTROL SQUADRON
-- wI "4tiV I"'/ 2605 EAST 8TH STREET
°°" GREELEY,COLORADO 80631-9713
<�3311 SO �+
18 August 1994
MEMORANDUM FOR ENSR Consulting and Engineering
1716 Heath Parkway
Fort Collins, CO 80524
FROM: 138 ACS/CC (LTC Clark)
2605 E. 8th Street
Greeley, Colorado 80631-9713
SUBJECT: Greeley-Weld County Airport Environmental Assessment
1. Reference your letter dated 21 Jul 94, the following comments are
provided for your information. Although the runway depicted in the
drawing would have no impact, there could be a problem with any navaids
normally associated with a runway this size.
2. This unit operates two primary electronic emitters. One, the
AN/TPS-75 long range radar, which has an output of 4.5 million watts and
operates in a bandwidth of 2.9 - 3.1 GHz. The second major emissions
source is the AN/TRC-170. This microwave communications system operates
in the 4 - 5 GHz bandwidth with a power output of 1,000 watts.
3. There are many similar radars operating in close proximity to major
airports. It probably is safe to assume there would not be a problem.
However, it is something that needs to be researched and its potential
impact, if any, addressed.
4. Any further questions may be addressed to myself at 303-350-9001.
DOUGLAS C. CLARK, Lt Col, COANG
Commander
NT .
United States Department of the interior
17
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
—Y� Ecological Services
4q 0D/ Colorado Field Office
730 Simms Street,Suite 290
Golden,Colorado 80401
IN REPLY REFER TO:
ES/CO:Speeies Lid
Mail Stop 65412
AUG 24 1994
Jon D. Alstad, Plant Ecologist
ENSR Consulting and Engineering
1716 Heath Parkway
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
Dear Mr. Alstad:
In response to your letter dated July 29, 1994, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) is providing the species list you
requested for the Greeley-Weld County Airport Expansion Project
located in Weld County, Colorado. The following list of
threatened, endangered, and candidate species should be helpful
in your preparation of the environmental assessment for the
project site. These comments have been prepared under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) , as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et. seq. ) .
The federally listed threatened and endangered species that could
occur at or visit the proposed site are:
Birds: Bald eagle, Haliaeetus leucocephalus, Endangered
Whooping crane, Grus americana, Endangered
Least tern, Sterna antillarium, Endangered
Piping plover, Charadrius melodus, Threatened
Mammals: Black-footed ferret, Mustela nigripes, Endangered
Plants: Ute ladies'-tresses orchid, Spiranthes diluvialis,
Threatened
Bald eagles are winter inhabitants of Colorado. Eagles arrive in
Colorado around mid-October and then migrate north around the end
of March. Eagles generally roost close to rivers and reservoirs
were they feed on fish, small mammals, and carrion.
Black-footed ferrets are closely associated with prairie dog
complexes. Ferrets are mostly nocturnal, solitary carnivores
that feed mainly on prairie dogs.
Spiranthes diluvialis occurs in seasonally moist soils and wet
meadows near springs, lakes, and perennial streams and their
associated flood plains below 6, 500 feet elevation. In Colorado,
S. diluvialis can potentially occur in the South Platte River
Drainage where ever the required habitat is present.
Jon D. Alstad, Plant Ecologist 2
The Service also is interested in the protection of species which
are candidates for official listing as threatened or endangered
(Federal Resister, Vol. 56, No. 225, November 21, 1991; Vol. 55,
No. 35, February 21, 1990) . While these species presently have
no legal protection under the ESA, it is within the spirit of
this act to consider project impacts to potentially sensitive
candidate species. It is the intention of the Service to protect
these species before human-related activities adversely impact
their habitat to a degree that they would need to be listed and,
therefore, protected under the ESA. Additionally, we wish to
make you aware of the presence of Federal candidates should any
be proposed or listed prior to the time that all Federal actions
related to the project are completed. If any candidate species
will be unavoidably impacted, appropriate mitigation should be
proposed and discussed with this office.
The list of Federal candidate species that could occur at or
visit the proposed site include:
Birds: Black Tern, Chlidonias niger, Category 2
Ferruginous hawk, Buteo regalis, Category 2
White-faced ibis, Plegadis chihi, Category 2
Mountain plover, Charadrius montanus,
Category 1
Baird' s Sparrow, Ammodramus bairdii,
Category 2
Mammals: Preble's meadow jumping mouse, Zapus hudsonius
preblei, Category 2
Swift fox, Vulpes velox, Category 2
Fringed-tailed myotis, Myotis thysanodes
pahasapensis, Category 2
Fishes: Plains topminnow, Fundulus sciadicus,
Category 2
Plants: Colorado butterflyweed, Gaura neomexicana ssp.
coloradensis, Category 1
Dwarf milkweed, Asclepias uncialis, Category 2
Showy prairie gentian, Eustoma grandiflorum,
Category 2
Insects: Regal fritillary butterfly, Speyeria idalia,
Category 2
Jon D. Alstad, Plant Ecologist 3
If the Service can be of further assistance, contact Clay Ronish
of this office at (303) 231-5280.
Since y,
LeRoy . Carlson
Colora o Field Supervisor
cc: Reading file
Project file
Reference:
CRR•SPECLIST.94
e'er% UNITED F' ATER ENVIRONMENTAL PROTE' -ION AGENCY
_ ti yyt� REGION VIII
� r 999 18th STREET - SUITE 500
DENVER, COLORADO 80202-2466
AUG 2 9 1994
Ref : BART-AP
Mr. Bill Theisen, Project Manager
ENSR Consulting and Engineering
1716 Heath Parkway
Fort Collins, CO 80524
Dear Mr. Theisen:
This is to respond to your request for comments on the
issues, concerns, potential impacts, and alternatives that should
be addressed in the EA for the proposed expansion of the Greeley-
Weld County Airport. Our comments are limited due to the limited
information you were able to provide at this time.
We understand that the Greeley-Weld County Airport Authority
is proposing to acquire approximately 315 acres to expand the
existing airport site to accommodate the development of new
Runway 16/34 to a length of 10, 000 feet and a width of 100 feet.
We also understand from the Federal Aviation Administration
that the runway expansion will accommodate the existing demand at
the airport and thus is not expected to generate an increase in
traffic .
Based on this limited information, we offer the comments in
the attached summary. Some of our comments may have limited
applicability to your project. As the project advances, we will
gladly provide additional comments based on more specific project
issues .
We encourage you to work closely with the Federal Aviation
Administration, the local metropolitan planning organization, and
the Colorado Department of Health as you proceed on the EA.
If you have additional questions, please contact Aundrey C.
Wilkins at 303-294-1379 .
Sincerely,
` .�-
.. Dou a Chief
roo�- ns Branch
- Attachment
cc : Almando Roam, Federal Aviation Administration
OPrinted on Recycled Paper
2
Comments
The Proposed Greeley-Weld County Airport Expansion
Potential Environmental Impacts:
Wetlands and Environmental Contamination in the Area:
Airport projects are generally confined to the narrowly
defined area of the project itself. However, potential
impacts to wildlife and fish, wetlands, stream drainage
patterns, fragmentation and connectivity to other projects •
may extend beyond such boundaries. An appropriate analysis
should be done to fully address these concerns . Appropriate
steps should be taken to determine whether wetlands are
present in the expanded area and avoid impacts to waters in
the area. The Corps of Engineers must be contacted and
given the opportunity to review all sites exhibiting
wetlands characteristics. They will subsequently make a
determination on the need for a 404 permit .
Air Quality:
The effects of the project on air quality must be
quantified. The air quality analysis must demonstrate that
the proposed alternative will not cause or contribute to any
violations of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) .
Transportation or General Conformity Requirements:
The urban area of Greeley is a nonattainment area for Carbon
Monoxide (CO) . The Transportation and General Conformity
Rule, published in November 1994, apply to nonattainment and
maintenance areas.
Impacts from the expansion of an existing airport can fall
under both Transportation and General Conformity.
Therefore, you must determine the applicability of this
action to each of these rules . If it is determined that one
or both rules apply, you must demonstrate how this project
conforms to the rule. Copies of both rules are attached for
your use.
Airport emissions fall under the general conformity rule.
The general conformity rule provides guidance on how to
determine applicability of various federal actions. If
3
roadway improvements or realignments are necessary to
accommodate the project, these projects may be subject to
the transportation conformity rule.
Generally, the primary air quality concern with airport
construction or expansion is the effect of aircraft and
ground vehicle emissions on air quality and their impact on
1) Nonattainment areas, 2) Class I and II protection areas,
and 3) areas where an air quality standard could be violated
by increases in emissions due to increased motor vehicle
use.
The analysis must identify Class I and II areas that could
potentially be affected by the project; describe any state
or local air quality regulations or State Implementation
Plan (SIP) requirements that apply to the project; and
elaborate on how compliance with those regulations or
requirements will be achieved. The Colorado Air Pollution
Control Division should be consulted regarding the
appropriate level of air quality analysis, emission factors,
and air quality models .
Other Information Regarding the Area:
We did not identify any studies or other data concerning the
study area that should be added to the EA.
Mr Bill Theisen
ENSR Consulting and Engineering
1716 Heath Parkway
Ft Collins CO 80525
Dear Sir,
I find it necessary to write a letter commenting on the incorrect
and misleading information in your Draft Working Paper *2 for the
Greeley Weld County Airport Project Environment Assessment .
Due to the short time we the Airport Authority Board Members have
to review and research and make comments on this paper I am sure
I overlooked many incorrect statements. But with the time I have
I would like to point out a few of the more obvious misleading
and incorrect statements. And it is my hope the financial
supporters of the project will take a close look at this document
you have prepared. I am sure they will see the obvious errors
for themselves.
I . On Noise and Noise Contours Figure 4-3 these numbers
obviously were based on an average not on a peek time of
occurrence so there for we could have the same problem that many
airports have with jet aircraft noise. Although this plan was
designed to not impact the City of Greeley, if you look at an
aerial map of this area you will find the runway will be very
close to a number of rural dwellings. And this assessment does
not include any of the dwellings south of the airport.
Why don' t you make your own assessment of this problem and not
rely on out dated and incorrect information handed to you for the
purpose of misleading the public and the financial supporters.
II . On Page 4-10 paragraph 4.4-1 It is stated that
approximately 350 acres will need to be acquired and that no
dwelling relocation would be required as shows on figure 4.and
then is said figure 4 will be provided. I am asking when will it
be provided . I would like to see this map and- look over the land
for myself before I sign off on this official document.
III . As to Economic Impact on page 4-12 paragraph 4.4.2 it is
stated that the increase in aircraft activities at the Greeley
Weld Airport will increase aircraft maintenance and hanger space
income. On page 1 . 10 of the Final Working Paper #1 for the
Greeley Weld County Airport Project Environmental Assessment.
The Federal Aviation Administration forecasts there will be an
increase of only 4 aircraft between the years of 1990 and 1999 if
this forecast is anywhere near true and I have no reason to doubt -
the FAA's forecast where will this economic impact come from?
With this kind of statement I think you can see why I say this is
misleading information.
IV. On page 4-14 paragraph 4.5.3 It is true Weld County is one
of the Nations top Agriculture producers . So why do we want to
take 350 acres of the best farm land out of production to build
an unneeded airport .
And as to the number of agriculture spraying operators based at
the airport there are only 2 at the present time . This is down
considerably from a few years ago.
And as to the Expansion of Monfort ' s hanger if you take the
time to look you will find a "for sale" sign on it .
V. Water Quality
Where does this assessment cover waste water run off of the
proposed runways and taxiways.
VI . Page 4-12 paragraph 4.43 Transportation and Ground Access
How can you say there will be no significant increase in surface
traffic if you are planning all the increases in the economic
development of the airport . Where and or how will these people
get to the airport .
I was not aware the light rail system was to serve the Greeley
Weld County Airport. Of course in the same paragraph you tell
about widening Highway 263 from Greeley to the airport . From BO
to 150 feet . First I wonder why this is needed if you say there
will be no increase in surface traffic , But more over I have
checked with the Colorado State Highway Department, the North
Front Range Transportation and Air Quality Planning Council , and
the Greeley Public Works Department and was told by all that
there were no plans for the Highway to be widened . I ask you
again where did you get your information on this or is this
another misleading statement.
VII . Solid Waste Impact
The list of towns and cities that Weld Landfill services is
correct . Congratulations'. But your statement about the life of
the facility is false . Why would you not research these facts
before printing them in an assessment that has the potential of a
major financial burden on the taxpayers of this county.
Please let ' s just tell the truth .
Robert (Bob ) Ke ly
UNITED F TES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEf 'ON AGENCY
REGION VIII
t 999 18th STREET - SUITE 500
waA,F DENVER, COLORADO 80202-2466
Ref: 8AT-TS SEP 13 1994
Mr. Bill Theisen
Project Manager
ENSR
1716 Heath Parkway
Fort Collins, CO 80524
RE: FOIA (8)RIN-1071-94
Dear Mr. Theisen:
This letter is a second response to your Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) request dated July 20, 1994 . Pursuant to
the phone discussion you had with Rose Bell, of my staff, on
08/12/94, we have searched our data files under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) , and the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) for the inspection and
compliance history of facilities located in the Zip Code area of
80631 and can provide the enclosed listings.
If you have any further questions or can provide a facility
name please contact Rose Bell of my staff at 293=1740 .
Sincerely,
C. Alvin fdrke, Chief
Toxic Substances Branch
��) Printed on Recycled Paper
N
ce
W
U
C
N
W
J W
G.
N
W
> 6
2 rc
N
Z
K
W W
Z
2 g
IN
W z
r x
- o
N -I
CO
2 F
W
U
a
a
N
CO
co
N
pN.
S Q
W O
N W
<
U LL
L. A
O M
cc
N
IL
ac
s
P
O
W NO
N
N N
O J O 0
.-
0
W N
N NO
N
O 0
<
W
8
0 3
a ry
▪ g
J 1L
col
2
pN
O P
Ol r
2 P
O
W
u W
It 0
L %a
O
Y
V
K
N
tK
W
C
2
0
U
6
J
N
4!
W
J -
1
H
N
W
N
- W
— 6
8
U
N
S
<
H
N
u
w cc
s
< —
z "
In
W- >-Y
— <
N O
•
pM
re •
O
a
a 2 a
H r
Y O
8
O <
<
O
O
O
U
pM
m P
2 .-
11.
N 0 O
< c
V A
r
0 O
U
L
K
N
K
1
K
O \
W 0
boo
J O
u —
O
WJ M
N \
N d
N
O S
'Si
8
u
O
•
8
u
< z
<
J
N
O
W
J f
0.
yN1
>
2 W
<
<
its
S_
U
pM.
m P
z •
N m
u c
0 o
o
u
0)
rc
•
•
•
a
W
•
ti
U
< 2
t
J
N
u
W
J W
G
N
z 'U
z W
� W
U
z_
a
z
0
CC
K
W W
N
W
I- W
Z
2
K
m_
8
2
W
O M
K
N
K
W
u
<
J
N
f:J
W
a
Y
N1
> > > >
GC Of c a
- Of Of s C.
> a a )-
2 z z z
< c < <
a a a a
6666
u u u u
J J J
< < <
U UIJJ U U_
2222
= = =W W W
W
`S U U U U
2 W LU W F
1 r
W r- - IF D-
UI a a a a
ac
m_
W
8
O
m
Z
W
N
<
u
112 '42
O — -- - ,,
K
N
K
W
z
O
•-
< Y 2
h,
<
N
W
J 1.- LL
Y
N
W
c
z z K
� K K
•
0
u
r )-
-a J
a O.
a
a a
O O
a a
J J
< a
a a
z
W W
W x =
z a u
z o 0
J J
W CO CO
I- W W
• J
N R.
m
Z
W
(1
O
C
U
0
M
N
N
K CU
• N
z S N
W O
N W
6
U W
yM,
0 J P
O M M
U
d
a
K
2
W
K
N
P
o
W P
g .
Jo
u
O
W N
a Et
to P
- N
sg
W
8
o
- m
I-
4,- a
J
N
0
W
J -
6
T•WN
ix
K
N
6K
W
C
<
c z z z z
<
N
U
W
6
r
N
W
z a a n a
N X CO N
0 0 0 0
LILILILI
J J J J
< < < <
U UF. _ U_ U_
ZZZE
_W _W W_ W_
1J U U U
UJUJUJIU
M 1- H -
< < < <
J J
6 6 d O.
\ \ \ \
N N N N
▪ H
U U U U
J p0 pJ p0
8 8 8 8
a K a K
a Cl a a
rc c 2 c
w u 0 0 0
2 0 0 'U 0
w F w F
W H H
2 2 2 2
N 0 J J
O:
N
2
W
(,1
8
C
K
m
a
CO
it CO F
I- 03 CO
8
U
W
C
•
(OL
W
Ks
U
<
<
J
v
'Si
J f
O.
r
N/
> N
2 w
8
u
N
3
W N
rd a
2 W
1 J
F
K
in f9
K
m_
W
Y
8
D •
Y
W
N
<
• r-
O M
J
J
W
K
J
J
<
S
W
U
in Z
Y W
K 1 T.w
W
K K
3
u
<
J
N_ •
W
J I—
a.
H
in
co
Z 'Si
f
an
O
J
8
S U
WI 0
I— Jy11
N 3
CO
K
m
Z
f r
<
O N
Y
K
N
tK
O
W N
N
O
A
U O
O
Y N
2
< N
W
J
W '
8
O
J
O
U
< u
W
J F
a
N
>
2 W
K a
P
Z
ti
W �
`O"
<
45 N
O
uO e-
t
K
N
tC
W
U
u
6 ►
Q
J
N
u
W
J y-
0.
Y
F
N
W
>
g
S
U
N
Q
N
_C
U
W 2 2
S
Q
a
N
w
• a
Q
N 0
FM
N
2
0
2 i
r
W
x• '
D Q
W
N
Q
U
8 N
L {Q
O
U
d
C
N
Y
W
N'U p
O O
J M
U 0
0
OI
► O
0- O
J
t_
a
J
W
8
O >
<
>
a-
U u
< u
-J
N
a
W
-J H
a
N
W
> N
A
N
Si
2
W
L
<
O
u
u
e
N
C
w
K
8
1-
6 Z 2
J
N
a
'Al
-J LL LL
O.
Y
_ f
N
< Q
2 0 IX
0
• J J
O 0
0 0
a a
O 0
O 0
0 0
O C
U U
LL LL
w 0 0
a Y
z 0 0
0
Ill
Li.
z 0 2
I Z
N Z
a
m
z
Y
w
0
0
of
D
m
2
w
N
t
CO 0
V
P
O
U
L
K
tre
W
C
f
H
< 2 2
H
<
J
N_
W
-a U. -
6
N
W
C >
2 O. 6
� t:l
N N
H I-
0 U
J
88
a a
a a
J J
W
< a
u i
2 ,
< W W
a a a
I N N
W
1- a a
< a
N J
CO
2
W
{1
8
G
a
W
N
gU
L O g
O
Y
Y
C
N
W
rc
8
r
u
Z
J
in
m
W
J H
6
>-
> N
Z
Z
N
C
6
r
Z
W
Z
W W
2 J
W
Z
f
W 0
U
in N
C
m
2
r
W
O
C
D
C
m
Z
W
co
a
u
o
u
v
N
C
C
U
� S
C
J
N
{9
W
J f
a.
a-
0
U
N
N
H
"Jr
r
w
f yJ�
N
m
W
O
G
C
m
W
N
u
N
0
ce
w
•
Y
cc
W
K
U
u
<
r
<
N
IJ
W
h
0.
o—
>
z cc
2
U
=
0
- u
2
<
rc
W_
f
W J
S
< >
2
W'
N H
K
CO
In-
D m
or
co
2
W
co
U
yO
K
co,
Y
K
W
zCA
U
t f
C
t
J
N
W
W
J H
a.
a—
> N
U
N
r
N
S
W
C
6
O
x
W P
S W
J
W W
H W
N O f.•J
•
2
H
W
Y
8
0
S co
ri
W MM
C M
U m
L N
O
Y
d
N
C
W
U
u
c
J
co
N
W
J H
6
Y,
N
W
2 6
•
6
W
O
W
K
W_ LL
< Y
z W
J
W W
f W
U'
m
f
W
8
G
a
z
W
N
U
m
N
0
u
4
K
2
Cc
F
f
2
2
N
K
W
C
2
O
ti
U
<
Vl
W
J W
a.
a-
N
J 0
z 0
z
0
CC
<
W
U
U
W
ca
N
W 6
<
2 W
IJ
W W
W
CO 0
CO U'
0
_m
W
(�
O
a
0
0
a
W
N
u
CO
0 O
u
a,
s
N
Y
K
W
O:
5
U
< S
C
<
J
N
C,
W
J f
d
N
'O
N
C
u
W
C
< >-
2 W
J
W W
f W
u K
N
m
S
H
W
8
C
m
2
W
N
L N
uO
N
ae
tC
W
zK
U
< 2 S Z
<
J
N
O
W
6 W U-
(12
W
O! K CC
z ee a CC
�- n v rc
a a
z z
<
a
E
u u
> a >
J J
a a a
w a a 0-
X
J 0 in
< N N N
2
0 U0 0
W U U U
I- J
W W W
N N N N
Y
et
W
U
0
0
z
co
z
w
N
<
U
ft MI CO P
P M M
yO N O O
Cc
N
S
co
LU
W
co
I
W 10 N 10 N N N 021 N N N U U N 120 N N 01 N U U N U u N co N N N N co N 01
O.
Y
Y •
1Ny
> > < Ol < 2 O<1 > N< < N t < Y > 2 > N N > 2 r 2 2 IA ( ` < < < N N <
? 2 ,$ l d J �O C O % d J j O K 1d0 K < W OC d d d d W W OC W W W $ W f:J
2 •O < K N X N N < < J W W W •O < J
..-
c
J
co
O •
W
d
N
Pei
II
F
<
f
N
'al
0—
•-• 0000 p 80000000000
000000000000008 W U "• U U U U U u 1J U U U U U U 0
N 0 0 0 0 0 U
Y
Y
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Y Y . . . . . Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
O f W WW W W W W WW LU W LU W LU W W WW W LU W W WW W W W W WW W LU
LU W W W LU W W W LU W W LU W LU W W W W LU W W W W LU W W W W W W LU WW
- W W W W W W W LU W WW WW W W W W W WW W U.1 W W LU W W W W W W W
N O 3353333333 3333333335333 33333333
Y
w
W
W
a
Y W
co0
F = 2 OC
N f
W Y
0
y Y W
1.0 J < 2 0 PC. 2 Y
W W W W W 2 = J LU
W M W LU W W W W es W W W W W > f p 0 CO W LU
W W W f > N W W W W LU W 2 2 2 2 OC > W ffUJJ > E '
w > > > r it;w 6 Y d' 2 O[ p; p; p[ yI Y Y Y Y Y Y < N W = < 0 Y YI V. 6 6 < N W N CLAN
Y Y Y Y Y 1- W N N N N N N O < Y N Cl) a a C K S < N N 0410 N 2 _ = _ _ _ 0 = a (0 S U O = 0 f = S r Y = t < _ W OCC pY[ y1 S Y S G _
< P 2 M 4 0 ^ N N Y ` < < O 0 0 O < N_ N COO COCON i 0 4 W w4.1-31Q
0 K
p M ' p 1
Yar
IP ^ O ' e e O O e S M M 0 0 0 0 r• O " P 0 0 0 0 M N O 0 0 d
A O N N 0 r P ' N N N N O N O t- N MM N O 10 - N •O N .C CO 'O M CD O• •O •O •O .O M 0 N • g q q 0 N N N • P M
u u u 000
-J J J J 1J
< < < a
u_ U_ u_ u m -
2 2 2 2 N ,,-
LU W W LU 2
= S S = S N U <
W O U u Y Y . d
raac
N W W W W U 2
4- gJ _ r _ H 2 a fff...11l
2 W a a 4 = 0. 0. \ N. Q <LC 2 O .. V
w a J V1 2 N N Y Y S T0 N N N
OC < N
Cp> U S - < C O G O 1- 1- a 2 U in 0 r Y Y r Y p� -Ca J d
u < T `O um r O O J J d< 6 N 0 < J J J 0 Y Ca u t J d f 1 = 28888
• N p[ p' p == Y p p p 5<<y� < 8 o Y
n N_ 0 0 = 0 W N i 0 0 CC O w u ` g ` S O O d. I- JJ J 2 2 <
88 = 8
W X Y S U d 0. T Y 2 S 0 d d a
d i W N_ 2 6 A U 2 _
U J F a ` u Jd Y Y . _, _, _, _, ,,, ,.., a -
J T O W 1L < cc d d 2 N 2 S a Co W W < K O: W WLC
W A w d in Q. J 2 2 O O 0. O. W S 0 0• 0• 0 N W Y. W < W S 0 W
< N W Y T Y Y 0 Y U W J a ...,.., .,.: U < < < ( a. 1.•J U z
21 LU LU N J UJ J J lalJ Y 0. p' p( d d YYII U O O O O O W W M S W 2 Y
O N O O N N O O Y W W J O VVV111 W Y N Y d W 0 LULU LU W U 2 Q 1V LL U U Y . . . Y = r W 2 2 1C 01 W Y N S{J W LU W LU J 1-1yI 2 •CY d p`6S J J 10p1,,E� -Jy11 W 1p01�
�VNC < 0 0 0 O 0 N p r S O mp J J CO N N p 3 2 .Jp J J JO 0 p222 • o =
C p 1 o
L M M M M M A •Pp W O CPO P P O O O O O •O ' .4 �M} ' M .P{ N A A A A C ep
u N N M M M M rs M M M M M M M J J
W
2
N
C
W
K
U
< S
C
N
0
W
J LL
a
a-
-
N
2 K
C
0
C.)
W
C U-
t
2 W
W
r
N <
K
2
H
W
8
C
CC
co
W
N
<
K
N
tpc
W
cc
H
U
<
H
<
J
N
W
J f
G
Y
N
W
>
2 a.
0
u
4-
N
C
W J
S <
< W
2 N
W C
- J
C
N V
C
0
2
H
W
yY
G
m
2
W
N
u
r
O N u
w
rc
STATE OF COLORADO
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
re SOT
P.O.Box 850
Greeley,Colorado 80632-0850 ausaim
(303)353-1232
Greeley-Weld Airport
Expansion/Draft EA
October 31, 1994
Mr. Bill Theisen
Project Manager
ENSR Consulting and Engineering
1716 Heath Parkway
Fort Collins, Colorado 80524
Dear Mr. Theisen:
The following information on State Highway 263 is provided in
response to your letter of 10/20/94 regarding assessment of
traffic impacts of the proposed Greeley-Weld Airport Expansion.
Our responses to each of the seven items in your letter are
provided below.
1 . 1992 Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for the relevant segment of
S .H. 263 is 3, 000 . A 20-year projection of traffic to year 2112
yields 4, 500 ADT. The Design Hourly Volume factor is 0 . 12 .
2 . It is not appropriate to generalize the existing roadway
design capacity for S.H. 263. Highway capacity is a function of
variables including: specific traffic data, functional
classification, and terrain type.
3 . Our data does not include a level of service rating for S.H.
263 . A level of service "C" would be used for design purposes
for this highway, according to the CDOT Roadway Design Manual .
4 . A Summary of Traffic Accident Experience is attached for the
section of S.H. 263 adjacent to the airport from 1/1/91 through
12/31/93 .
5 . There are currently no State plans for improvements to this
highway.
6. S.H. 263 remains a two-lane highway for the year 2015
planning horizon in the North Front Range Transportation Plan.
7 . Criteria from the State Highway Access Code for determining
the need for Speed Change Lanes are attached.
We hope that the enclosed information responds to your needs in
assessing the traffic impacts of future airport expansion. Let
us know if you require any further information.
V y tr y ours,
Jo n K Crier
CDOT Region 4
Planning/Environ.
Manager
Enclosures
cc: Teresa Jones, Region 4 Development/Access Coord. (ltr. only)
File via Crier
STAFF TRAFFIC & SAFETY PROJECTS BRANCH
SUMMARY OF TRAFFIC ACCIDENT EXPERIENCE
1/ 1/91 through 12/31/93
STATE HIGHWAY 263 A M.P. 2.70 TO 3 .00
I. NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS REPORTED
One-Car Accidents 1
Two-Car Accidents 2
Three Or More Cars 0
Total 3
II. SEVERITY
Fatal Accidents 0 * Persons Killed 0
Injury Accidents 2 * Persons Injured 2
Property Damage Only 1 *
*
Total Accidents 3 *
III. LOCATION
On Roadway 2 * Off Roadway 1
Total 3
IV. TYPES OF ACCIDENTS
- Overturning 1 * Overtaking Turn 0
Other Non-Collision 0 * Parked Car 0
Pedestrian 0 * Train 0
Broadside 0 * Bicycle 0
Head-On 0 * Motorized Bicycle 0
Rear-End 1 * Domestic Animal 0
Sideswipe-Same Dir. 0 * Wild Animal 0
- Sideswipe-Opp. Dir. 0 * Fixed Object 0
Approach Turn 1 * Other Object 0
Total 3
V. LIGHT CONDITIONS VI. ADVERSE CONDITIONS
Daylight 2 * Raining 0
Dark Not Lighted 1 * Snowing 0
Dark Lighted 0 * Road Wet 0
* Road Snowy 0
* Road Icy 0
Total 3
STATE HIGHWAY - 26. SECTION - A
S MP K I L AT VT DO VM VT DO VM L RC C D T
E ICJ I N O CY EY IF EO EY IF EO I OO O A I
R LI L J C CP HP R HV HP R HV G AN N T M
I EN L U A IE IE EV IE IE EV IE H DD T E E
A T ERTDC CE C C CE C T I O
L D EIE L1 TH L1 L2 TH L2 T U
DONE I E E I E I R
N T O1 O2 O
N N N
88758 2.73 0 1 AT PKP/UV W LTRN CAR/VN E STRT DA SL 12/10/91 735
73968 2 .74 0 0 RE CAR/VN W PASN CAR/VN W STOP DA SL 9/24/93 1140
8260 2.80 0 1 L OV PKP/UV W STRT STOP DU SL 1/26/92 215
3. Surfacing material shall be specified according to the Department's standard design
specifications and the conditions and future use of the access and the highway.Gravel will be
permitted for individual residential access or field entrances where conditions allow, and
where curbs are not required.
4. Surfacing improvements shall not be allowed on the highway right-of-way between access
unless a concrete curb or other physical separator such as a drainage ditch is constructed and
maintained to limit access movements to permitted locations.
5. Surfacing material is defined as gravel, concrete,or bituminous pavement.
- 4.7 Speed Change Lanes
Speed change lanes,also called auxiliary lanes,are very helpful in maintaining the safety,flow and
operation of the highway and access.They are required according to the subsections that follow.
4.7.1 General Criteria for Speed Change Lanes
a. The graphs in subsection 4.7 are based upon trucks exceeding 30,000 pounds gross vehicle
weight (G.V.W.) being less than seven percent of the DHV. If the access will have a larger
percentage of vehicles exceeding 30,000 pounds G.V.W.,the access DHV values in the graphs
may be reduced by one-half to require median speed change lanes in the interest of public _ _
safety.
b. Where higher left turning volumes,safety,or traffic operations necessitates,a double left turn
design may be required.
c. If the design of the access is within two different speed zones,the criteria for the higher speed
zone will apply.
d. When public safety so requires due to site specific conditions,such as sight distance, a turn
lane may be required even though the criteria in subsection 4.7 are not met.
e. Where there are three or more through lanes in the direction of travel,the Department will
normally drop the requirement for right turn acceleration and deceleration lanes. However,
each case shall be reviewed independently and a decision made based upon site specific
conditions. Generally, the lanes will be required only for high volume access or when a
specific geometric safety problem exists.
f. When calculating the highway single lane DHV, it will be assumed that all lanes have equal
volumes.
29
•
4.7.2 Deceleration Lanes for Right Turning Vehicles
a. A speed change lane for right turning deceleration movements is required for any access
according to graph 4.7.2 when the DHV values of the highway single lane and the DHV of right
turns intersect at a point on or above the curve for the posted speed.
b. Where the DHV of the right turn into the access is less than five DHV and the outside lane
volume exceeds 250 DHV on 45 to 55 MPH highway,or 450 DHV on a 35 to 40 MPH highway,or
600 DHV on a 25 to 30 MPH highway,then a right turn lane may be required due to high traffic
volumes or other unique site specific safety considerations.
c. When the access volume meets or exceeds 25 DHV with a highway posted speed of 25 to 40
MPH or 20 DHV above 40 MPH,a right turn deceleration lane is required.
GRAPH 4.7.2
1I..l J.,L: r::anWxaIIlMMT r I in: IS: In-4,- ,.L .;c _i
MNMO••NM•N••••••N•N•NN•N•N•••••:•• O• •
•N N•N••••N•N••.•N••• ••N••NN��•p• �r !-. V� - =`
•NN••••N•N•N••N•N•N••••N•NN•••N••�•p•••N••••N• µ.r"“
P N••NN•••••NMN••:N••M••••••• q •N•S ey`r.La.. `y !r}Y�{'.'.f T ..•••:
�y SOS N••NN•••M••••••••NNW NM•M� • ••N •+11 4.:•'r'_
WV •tryf•N I rte. r
1 ' lfniwIN ' ;I .r.. ♦•
T
•MN 1••NNMM•• •• •• r rr ..l.r
•M• MMY•N•N ..I .l L. •:it
• .••N .1.
Z
O 400 i..I..._ ---
u
W
5
Q W
Z 300
I
i
200 .. __.
�:::: ._..... _. . $to
100 ___. .t'•uM.Lp... .. .... .
. .... ........
15 10 . 25
DHV OR AVERAGE PEAK HOUR VOLUME OF VEHICLES
TURNING RIGHT INTO ACCESS
30
4.73 Acceleration Lane for Right Turning Vehicles
a. A speed change lane for right turning acceleration movements is required for any access
according to graph 4.7.3 when the DHV values of the highway single lane and the DHV of right
_ turns intersect at a point on or above the curve for the posted speed.
b. A right turn acceleration lane may be required for any access where a high traffic volume on
the highway and lack of gaps in traffic make use of an acceleration lane necessary for vehicles
_ to enter the highway traffic flow through the use of merging techniques.
c. A right turn acceleration lane is not normally required when the posted speed is less than 40
MPH. However,an acceleration lane may be required where necessary for public safety and
traffic operations based upon site specific conditions.
d. Where the DHV of the right-turn movement out of the access is less than 15 DHV for speeds of
45 MPH and above,or less than 30 DHV for a speed of 40 MPH,no acceleration lane is required
— unless specifically necessary due to safety considerations.
GRAPH 4.73
.3-_-
400^ II . , - i �t ___41 O 300_ -..
O W _ .o4— _.'__ • • stfO
200 ..........._ .. :pea
4 e M
100 -
o to ..a ..... zo zs O 3s ao 45 ==
DHV OR AVERAGE PEAK HOUR VOLUME OF VEHICLES
TURNING RIGHT OUT OF ACCESS
31
4.7.4 Deceleration Lanes for Left Turning Vehicles
a. A speed change lane for left turning movements,is required for any access according to graph
4.7.4 when the DHV values of the highway single lane and the DHV of left turns intersect at a
point on or above the curve for the posted speed.
b. Where the DHV of the left turn into the access is less than12 DHV and the inside lane volume
exceeds 250 DHV on 45 to 55 MPH highways or400 DHV on 25 to 40 MPH highways,a left turn
lane may be required due to the high traffic volumes or other unique site specific safety
considerations.
c. When the access volume meets or exceeds 30 DHV for 25 to 40 MPH highways,or 25 DHV on
45 to 55 MPH highways,a left turn deceleration lane is required.
GRAPH 4.7.4 --
f
400 ! rr it+t t! !!
-t-J i
7 rl r 44:#'
i1 t ,
r .,r
.l l r+ 1 t !I . :1� � t t.: ::I I is i j,
Z 300 =i� l� # , r '< I iir 1l ri ! 11 '11: I1r r
: {t ( t11i ,! I0R.oliil 1 : :, „
U2 .:i .i f !1 . IE 1. ,• '9.t,E. :t t WI ; it ;�
C W 200:;t7.71.::1 ! 1 r .1:. '.11ri,t: -.23,,;;J. .. '.'ll Pi ' 1. .4
O= 701.Z ...1.. t I11 '1 ! 1'jl 1.....o. MP . .:1 .. ..T. ...I::•
C 100 :::'..... •r'. r, r. ff .. .: ........ ........
< 1•64 .l.I '1: 1. . . 43 fa S5 M.P.H.,I:. 1.....t. ,. .... r
1 .. Il 1
I !'
u 11 I I ,
fj11..1 :et 1 �jr. . ,t:{ i�• tl' 1.( !:. 1:! ;11:;11' :1:111
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
DHV OR AVERAGE PEAK HOUR VOLUME OF VEHICLES
TURNING LEFT INTO ACCESS
32
4.7.5 Acceleration Lanes for Left Turning Vehicles
a. The need for and use of a left turn acceleration lane is site specific. Factors such as highway
speed,access volume,nearby access,existing highway auxiliary lanes,traffic control devices,
available stopping sight distance and other topographic and highway design factors are
influential.A left turn acceleration lane may be required if the values of graph 4.7.3 are met,
and the issuing authority determines that the lane would be a benefit to highway safety and
operation.
b. Left turn acceleration lanes are not required where: 1) when the posted speed is below 40
MPH unless required for public safety by the Department's District Traffic and Safety
Engineer,or 2) the intersection is signalized,or 3)the acceleration lane would interfere with
left turn ingress movements to any other access.
4.8 Construction of Speed Change Lanes
1. When speed change lanes are required, they shall be constructed in accordance with this
subsection and other applicable parts of section four.
2. Where two accesses have speed change lanes that overlap,or are in close proximity but do not
overlap, a continuous lane shall be established between the accesses to improve roadway
consistency,safety,and to maintain edge continunity.
3. Speed change lanes shall normally be 12 feet wide exclusive of gutter pan or shoulder. If
existing thru travel lanes are less than 12 feet wide or if local government standards
recommend,a lesser width may be used provided a minimum of 10 feet of width is attained.
Speed change lanes should be a minimum of 11 feet on highways with a posted speed above 40
MPH,and where there is a high percentage of large trucks use.
•
4. Where no curb and gutter is required, a paved shoulder shall be provided that matches the
existing shoulder width along the highway or is a minimum of four feet in width,whichever is
greater.
Figure 4.8
Information Guide to Some Auxiliary Lane Elements:
Redirect tapers 4.8.2 E\ Redirect tapers 4.8.2 E
Y
— —\\\
H_______________
left turn lane 4.7.4
Right turn la�a Right turn lane 4.7..
Taper 4.8.28
Taper 4.8.28
— Radius 4.5
4t—yl
Width 4.4
33
Mr Bill Theisen
ENSR Consulting and Engineering
1716 Heath Parkway
Ft Collins CO 80525
Dear Sir,
I strongly oppose the use of Document Number 3797-006-3000 as a
legal Environmental Assessment due to the fact there are many
misleading statements and estimates regarding traffic counts and
capacity needs at the Greeley Weld County Airport , and also the
count of aircraft based at the airport . I am asking that my
previous two letters sent to you in the past be made part of the
Environmental Assessment study and be forwarded to the F.A.A. .
It is my hope the Environmental Assessment study can be corrected
and the true information will be forwarded to the public and the
F .A.A. .
Sincereel
-'1e(/Ir
Bob Kelly
Member Greeley/Weld County
Airport Authority Board
APPENDIX D
MEASURES OF SOUND
(Provided by the Federal Aviation Administration)
D-1
MEASURES OF SOUND
A person's ability to perceive a specific sound depends upon its
magnitude and character, as differentiated from the magnitudes
and characters of all the other sounds in the environment. A
number of qualitative descriptions may be used to describe the
subjective attributes of a sound, such as:
- Magnitude - loud or faint
- Broadband frequency content high pitched hiss or
low rumble
- Discrete frequency content - tonal or broadband
- Intermixing of pure tones - harsh or melodic
- Time variation - intermittent, fluctuating,
steady or impulsive
- Duration - long or short
Conventional measures of sound attempt to determine its magnitude
with respect to human perception, especially trying to account
for the frequency response characteristics of the ear, and
secondarily to the time integration characteristics of the ear.
But, they do not account for most of the other subjective
attributes. These are difficult to measure individually, and it
is even more difficult to combine them in a single measure.
However, one or more of these attributes may be important in
enabling a human to perceive a specific sound; for example, an
intermittent impulsive "rat-tat-tat" is more easily
distinguishable than a steady sound. To account for these
attributes, which are not easily measured, some noise rating
scales have defined penalties that are applied to the measured
magnitude of the sound to increase or decrease its value.
Magnitude
The unit used to measure the magnitude of sound level is the
decibel (dB) . In the phrase, "The sound level is so many
decibels, " its use is analogous to the use of "inch" in the
phrase, "The length is so many inches" or to "degree" in the
phrase, "The temperature on the Celsius scale is so many
degrees. " However, unlike the scales of length and temperature,
which are linear scales, the sound level scale is logarithmic.
By definition, therefore, the level of a sound which has 10 times
the mean square sound pressure of the reference sound is 10
decibels greater than the reference sound, and one which has 100
times (or 10 x 10) the mean square sound pressure of the
reference sound is 20 dB greater (10 + 10 dB) .*
* For measurement of sound pressure, sound pressure level is
defined as 10 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of
the measured mean square sound pressure to the square of a
specified reference sound pressure.
1
This use of a logarithmic scale for sound is convenient because
sound pressures of normal interest extend over a range of
10 million to 1. Since the mean square sound pressure is
proportional to the square of sound pressure, it extends over a
typical range of 100 million (a 100 trillion) to 1. This huge
number, 100 trillion (or 100,000,000,000,000, with 14 zeros after
the 1) is much more conveniently represented on the logarithmic
scale as 140 dB (14 x 10) . Figure 1 further illustrates the
relationships among the pressure scale, the pressure-squared
scale, and the decibel scale.
The use of the logarithmic decibel scale requires somewhat
different arithmetic than we are accustomed to using with linear
scales. For example, if two similar but independent noise
sources operate simultaneously, the measured mean square sound
pressure from the two sources will add together to give a value
twice that which would result from either source operating alone.
The resulting sound pressure level in decibels from the combined
sources will be only 3 dB higher than the level produced by
either source alone, since the logarithm of 2 is 0.3 and 10 times
0, 3 is 3 . In other words, if we have two sounds of different
magnitude from independent sources, then the level of the sum
will never be more than 3 dB above the level produced by the
greater source alone. If the two sound sources produce
individual levels that are different by 10 dB or more, then
adding the two together produces a level that is not
significantly different from that produced by the greater source
operating alone, as illustrated in Figure 2.
Two sounds which have the same sound pressure level may "sound"
quite different (i.e. , a rumble versus a hiss) because of
differing distributions of sound energy in the audible frequency
range. The distribution of sound energy as a function of
frequency is termed the "frequency spectrum" (see Figure 3 for an
example) . The spectrum is important to the measurement of the
magnitude of sounds because the human ear is more sensitive to
sounds at some frequencies than at others. For example, the
human ear hears best in the frequency range of 1,000 to 5, 000
cycles per second (or Hertz) than at very much lower or higher
frequencies. Therefore, in order to determine the magnitude of a
sound on a scale that is proportional to its magnitude as
perceived by a human, it is necessary to weight that part of the
sound energy spectrum humans hear most easily more heavily when
adding up the total sound magnitude as perceived. Figure 4
illustrates this concept of weighing the physical sound spectrum
to account for the frequency response of the human ear.
Frequency Weighing
Scientists who work in acoustics have attempted for many years to
find the ideal method to weight the frequency spectrum just as
does the human ear. These attempts have produced many different
2
10.000 + 100.000.000 - 60 -
1.000 - 1.000.000 - 60—
:M}y Ywv.:r{;}"<M.;Ypvw?!.•{.k,+w{�+,•hS,'�?4r"M?;ti h . . ...w px;.+.�y
h'zexi!K4' :at'}:i... bx }i+•t::.t:^•tii:i.:.vi•i {•••:.:9?. \•tt+t:.:3.•w t,.?iv?ist;1}}. :�}:Y?'vS+R:T::Sji i�:.+:: }:L}:�Y:::.:;: r
... ;,J«;':•'Mk':ka.::irttc.rii•'.s'.2u..-t,.iw•;,+•yt,.�a'.iht:
Fat Example 100;6e.i Savarmq(100.100) f.`' y10.000�: Mid. 10 Log 1101 i t a0 ' i '
i=:..:ar .xx.x•.:::nv.. .. t:t:rj; 4:. •taw
'••.oY••n.:.•'•'+J}Cfv;A?°+t: r`r;;Y;'.;aJ:�:-:;:::.:.:v.^.tKyt:,:ti `,•'t,�'.�v'�?• 1 {�)` t;•,':}",4,:}; }::v
:'w trr• yxn;:�' ).i SSptti}.::y,:t:t:t4i/y ti:% •. y :l vw't'Yv iron ..i:•};•..:;
}'..rayti`4m•I)nt`tttiw:.ni:•.:..v:.:x..::vn455avA•.ii3�t+w�U• �hyvyt'h:•.:twuvsKi+i•.43tq:xx. w+'p. 10- 100 - 20-
11 1 + 0�
Pressure - ►reaavre Decibel
Seale _ Squared Scale
Scalt
DECIBELS
/ 2
Sound Pressure Level - 10 Log 2
Pr
where pr is the reference pressure of
20 micron-newtons per square meter
Fig. 1. The logarithmic Nature of the Decibel
Source: Transportation Noise and its Control,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1972
(DOT-P5630. 1) _
3 .
•
•
de
100 ' 10.000— 4 Cembinttien
el Sounds Combineties
Ne.1 and Nel el Sounds
Ne.1 and No.2
— — — Sound Nel
Sound Ne.1 S0un0 Ne.1
3d!
to — 100 — 20—
Sound Ne.2 0.4 d6
1 1 0
Prtaeee hestre Decibel U1♦dding Two Sounds of Email Ibl nel Two Sounds of Very
Sale - Sduered Sole K.agnitudt o Kent
MagnflSale
Fig. 2. Example of the Change on the Decibel Scale
Resulting From Adding the Mean Square Values
of Two Sounds Together
•
Source: Transportation Noise and its Control,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1972
(DOT-P5630.1)
4.
•
Frequency spectrum of
the sound (a different
level exists at each
part of the spectrum)
•
d
The acoustic energy
across the spectrum
adds to give the
$ overall sound pressure
• level (a single number)
31.5 ' 63 125 250 500 1,000 2.000 4.000 8.000
Octave Band Canter Frequency in Cycles per Second (Hz)
Piano --
Scale I
� I I
261.6 1046.4
(Middle Cl 12 Octaves
above Middie Cl
Fig. 3. Example of a Frequency Spectrum of a Sound
Source: Noise in America, The Extent of the Noise
Problem, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
September 1981 (EPA Report 550/9-81-101)
5.
•
•
. a ,
Sward Saar
p
Si" 1 .,o -
��
!
eO
c
e e e ♦ acne Ir
o 4 Lr Nevin•
1 • 10 .
1 T
it/
If
.1° J! Swam..
wormer 1r Weenies
-20.p
SO t00 i0A 1.0= $.1:0010.000 20.Cat
F teitvwcy 1.vein R�were
Fig. 4. Weighting the Measured Spectrum to Account
for the Frequency Response of the Human Ear
Source: Noise in America, The Extent of the Noise
Problem, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
September 1981 (EPA Report 550/9-81-101)
6.
scales of sound measurement, including A-weighted sound level
(and also B, C, D, and E-weighted sound levels) , perceived noise
level, and loudness. A-weighing, which was developed in the
1930 's for use in a sound level meter, accomplishes the weighing
by an electrical network which works in a manner similar to the
bass and treble controls on a hi-fi set.
A-weighing has been used extensively throughout the world to
measure the magnitudes of sounds of all types. Because of its
universality, it was adopted by EPA and other government agencies
for the description of sounds in the environment. A newer
weighing, such as the D or E weightings which are based on the
decade of research leading to the perceived noise level scale,
might eventually supplant A-weighing as the universal method.
But until one of these newer scales is in common use and its
superiority over A-weighing for measurement of environmental
sounds is demonstrated, A-weighing is expected to dominate.
The zero value on the A-weighted sound level scale (sound level,
for short) is the reference pressure of 20 micro-newtons per
square meter. This value was selected because it approximated
the smallest sound pressure that can be detected by a human. The
average sound level of a whisper at a 1-meter distance from the
person who is whispering is 40 dB; the sound level of a normal
voice speaking 1 meter away is 57 dB; a shout, 1 meter away, is
85 dB. Other examples of sound levels are illustrated in
Figure 5.
Time Variation of Sound Level
Generally, the magnitude of sound in the environment varies in a
random fashion with time. There are many exceptions; for
example, the sound of a waterfall is steady with time, as is the
sound of a room air conditioner when it is operating or the sound
inside a car or airplane cruising at constant speed. But in most
places the outdoor sound is ever-changing in magnitude, because
it is influenced by sounds from many sources -- people, animals,
many types of vehicles, near and far.
In one sense, the temporal variation of the magnitude of sound
with time is analogous to the variation in shade (light to dark)
in a picture or one's surroundings. Similarly, the changing
characteristics of the subjective attributes and frequency
spectrum to the ear might be analogous to change in color to the
eye. It may be that the temporal changes in magnitude and
character of the sound in the environment add richness to the
human environmental experience, as do visual changes in intensity
and color. Certainly the varying sounds of bird song and
rustling leaves in the forest are more rewarding than the utter
silence that precedes a storm or the steady hum of a noisy
ballast transformer in a fluorescent light. Changing patterns of
normal sound make humans continually aware of life going on
7
O
N 0
.- N
p 1
II ;
I;
P
IO Y
p L o
p E
C O .E o
4_1.1_
- a 4 o o
b
3 a-
00 = o O
0 0 L
-b _ M Nit
C: O N S I
m° O • I ( m4
Gi aa I I I I IHV
t
p o 7 H
m c C H
0 v a' b
p I I I E a 0
.. N. I I � ' . ` n N W I
O 1 I I d 00
O I . ma —
q I I I ( I I I I i i ti p '0 N CO0 C CO
rn
a II I ' + Ill ' c 'C
m I 1 I ,.i 0 .�
I (0 &I'el
a I I I � bo
41 in I I I / O a
0 0 R'
I I I h o a <
C
O CO
01 m I I I 0 +, k
11
IfIIjii1hILI O9 40
g ' d w � +�
Y 4-1 s-'_
4.1
I I I OI b 1�
I d
...40
r cl l�
in HT
PI
II . . I II7 w0 <i• 0Y ' 11 Q
01 I I I _ _
M O O
II � 100i_e_zes. n.
Ho . II � IIIII IY0) ` c ` u)i
aO Iliji'. O o y_ 0 . van $O O. 0
o � Co) " a . `o III , tteE Y 'i cn -00 :I ;
. O > •1 p O I J I Op Y w Y> 3 -0 . I Y_ a yn .. 0 0 . III .
. COo E aG E ; 3 ath 0 o O . - Io0 CYC u• 0u • • 0 -00c0,- -0 . • < <E a J JcO O .
3 y c w a� �T it it O
inO3 0 O N V b Ges 0 0 0 3 V V 1 Y V v 0 x-Es ;
6
c ~ : . O 3 c o m ` E E H •Ya E •o o
-ac Zoo 2•— oo , c os �' 033000 $ 0 _ ° `` � Eo
V N O SNP LNLf' m V < Q 002 . > ,u U < Y. 3c
8. -
around them and assure them that all is well. However, if the
fluctuation in magnitude of sound exceeds the range which is
acceptable in a specific context, if the average sound level is
high enough to interfere with speech or some other activity, or
if a sound of unusual character or undesirable connotation is
perceived, the subconscious feeling of well-being may be replaced
with annoyance.
It is generally easy to measure the continuously changing
magnitude of the sound level. It may be displayed on a graphic
level recorder, in which a pen traces a line on a sheet of moving
paper, and the displacement of the pen is proportional to the
sound level. Figure 6 illustrates two 8-minute samples of such a
recording. Several features of these two samples should be
noted. The first feature is that the sound level varies with
time over a range of 33 dB, which is a ratio of 2000 to 1 in mean
square sound pressure.
Second, in these two samples, the sound appears to be
characterized by a fairly steady-state lower level, upon which
are superimposed the increased sound levels associated with
discrete (individual) single events. This fairly constant lower
level is often called the residual sound level. An example of
residual sound is the continuous sound one hears in the backyard
at night, when no single source can be identified, so the sound
seems to come from "all around. " The distinct sounds which are
superimposed on the residual sound level, such as the aircraft
overflight. cars, and dogs barking can be classified as the
result of a succession of single events.
Third, although each single event may be partially characterized
by its maximum level, its time pattern is also of major
significance. For example, the sound level of the aircraft in
the example is above that of the residual sound level for
approximately 80 seconds, whereas the sound levels from the cars
passing by on the street are above the residual sound level for
much shorter durations, ranging between about 5 and 20 seconds.
Clearly, if the sound associated with these single events were of
sufficient magnitude to intrude on an individual's activities --
conversation, thinking, watching television, etc.-- the duration
factor might be expected to affect the resulting degree of
annoyance. Similarly, it might be anticipated that the number of
times such an event recurred also would affect the degree of
annoyance.
The data in these continuous recordings of sound are very
instructive in the understanding of the nature of the outdoor
sound environment at any neighborhood location. However, to
quantify an outdoor sound environment at one location so that it
can be compared with that at others, it is necessary to simplify
its description by eliminating much of the temporal detail.
9
_ Early Afternoon
80 — Can on Nearby Aircraft r—Local Cars
70 - Boulevard Overflighfj 7
// " _ S Sports Standard _
•
60 _
V
E
Z 50 -
z _ ___
la 40
51 Residual Noise Level
E 30 I I I I I I I I
0 1 2 3 4' 5 6 7 8
Time in Minutes
>
d
J
m -Late Evening
•o
Z
80 _ Intermittent Local Cars -
°' Dog Barks -
s`
3 70 Distant s Steady Barking of Two Dogs -
Q 60 -
lliiiiiik50 - _
40 •x'=-1+A„/—__ - -- ISI1
Residual Noise Level
30 • I 1 I I I I I I
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time in Minutes
-
Fig. 6. Two Samples of Outdoor Noise in a Normal
Suburban Neighborhood with the Microphone
Located 20 Feet From the Street Curb
•
Source: Community Noise, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, December 1971 (NTID 300.3)
10.
• One way of accomplishing this simplification is to
measure the value of the residual sound level and the
values of the maximum sound level for specific single
event sounds at various times during the day, using
either a simple sound level meter or the continuous
graphic level recording of its output.
• Another method of quantifying the sound environment is
to determine the statistical properties of the sound
level by attaching a statistical analyzer to the output
of the sound level meter. This allows one to determine
the amount of time that the sound level exceeds any
stated sound level, or, conversely, the sound level
which is exceeded for a stated percentage of the time.
• A third method is to determine the value of a steady-
state sound which has the same average value of
A-weighted mean square sound pressure as that contained
in the time-varying sound. This value is termed the
Equivalent Sound Level.
Each of these descriptors has its own special usefulness.
Residual and maximum sound levels are easily measured by a hand-
held sound level meter or a sophisticated computer-based
monitoring system. However, such measurements give no indication
of the duration of the various single events, nor a notion of the
average "state" of the environment.
The statistical method can be crudely accomplished by use of a
hand-held sound level meter, but it is a time-consuming, tedious
process, not very accurate in many cases. It is best
accomplished with a sophisticated instrument or monitoring system
designed for the purpose. It can give the complete detailed
statistical distribution curve of sound level versus time for any
desired duration: for example, each hour of the day, daytime or
nighttime, or 24-hour day. Such a curve is often a most useful
reduction of the detail contained in the graphic level recording,
although it eliminates all information about specific events.
However, if a single value is required for convenience, it is
necessary to make an arbitrary choice of a point (level and
duration) on the curve, eliminating most of the statistical
information.
The measurement of the Equivalent Sound Level may be approximated
with a hand-held sound level meter; in this case, the problems
are about the same as those encountered in a similar measurement
of the statistical distribution. The Equivalent Sound Level,
however, is best measured with an instrument or monitoring system
designed specifically for this purpose. Such an instrument is
called an Integrating Sound Level Meter. It can provide directly
a single value for any desired duration, a value which includes
all of the time-varying sound in the measurement period. As
11
such, it is a more complete description than a single value of
level and time taken from a statistical description. For
example, if the "level which is exceeded 10% of the total time"
is used as the descriptor of the time varying sound, its value
remains constant and independent of the magnitudes of all higher
level sounds as long as their durations are less than 10% of the
total time. In contrast, these sounds of higher level are fully
accounted for in the Equivalent Sound Level descriptor.
The major virtue of the equivalent sound level is that its
magnitude correlates well with the effects on humans that result
from a wide variation in types of environmental sound levels and
time patterns. It has been proved to provide good correlation
between noise and speech interference and noise and risk of
hearing loss. It also is the basis for measure of the total
outdoor noise environment, the Day/Night Sound Level, which
correlates well with community reaction to noise and to the
results of social surveys of annoyance to aircraft noise.
The Day/Night Sound Level is defined as the A-weighted equivalent
sound level for a 24-hour period with a +10 dB weighing applied
to the equivalent sound levels measured during the nighttime
hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The nighttime weighing acts to
increase the levels measured in nighttime by 10 dB. Hence, an
environment that has a measured daytime equivalent sound level of
60 dB and a measured nighttime equivalent sound level of 50 dB
has a weighted nighttime sound level of 60 dB (50 + 10) and a
Day/Night Sound Level of 60 dB. Examples of measured Day/Night
Sound levels are given in Figure 7.
Characterizing Specific Sounds
The sounds that combine to make environmental sound can be
considered a collection of sounds from steady-state sources (such
as transformers) and the sounds from time-varying single-event
sources which occur at random or regular intervals (such as
moving vehicles) , superimposed on a quasi-steady-state residual
or background level of sounds which are indistinguishable.
The descriptor of the steady-state sound is simply the A-weighted
sound level and the duration of the event. The descriptor for
the time varying sounds associated with single events must
include both magnitude and duration. One method is to measure
the maximum sound level and the duration in which the sound level
is above a stated number of decibels below the maximum level:
for example, the number of seconds between the time that the
sound rises from 10 dB below maximum, to maximum, and falls again
to 10 dB below maximum. An alternative description, which
produces a single value for the sound of the single event, is the
Sound Exposure Level, the level of the total sound exposure at
the microphone resulting from the event. These concepts are
illustrated in Figure 8.
12
Ldn
DAY—NIGHT
QUALITATIVE . SOUND LEVEL
DESCRIPTIONS DECIBELS - OUTDOOR LOCATIONS
-90-
LOS ANGELES—3rd FLOOR APARTMENT NEXT TO
FREEWAY
LOS ANGELES-3/4 MILE FROM TOUCH DOWN AT
MAJOR AIRPORT
CITY NOISE O- LOS ANGELES—DOWNTOWN WITH SOME CON•
(DOWNTOWN MAJOR STRUCTION ACTIVITY
METROPOLIS) =N .HARLEM—2nd FLOOR APARTMENT
VERY NOISY _
} . BOSTON—ROW HOUSING ON MAJOR AVENUE
INOISY URBAN -=.•.
.WATTS-8 MILES FROM TOUCH DOWN AT -
_ 6 MAJOR AIRPORT
P URBAN T\ NEWPORT-3.5 MILES FROM TAKEOFF AT
c }�2 . - • SMALL AIRPORT
u, LOS ANGELES-OLD RESIDENTIAL AREA
c
SUBURBAN
FILLMORE-SMALL TOWNCUL-de-SAC
..
SMALL TOWN A.-50S.,_ SAN DIEGO-WOODED RESIDENTIAL
QUIET SUBURBAN
CALIFORNIA-TOMATO FIELD ON FARM
—40-
Fig. 7. Examples of Outdoor Day/Night Sound Level in
dB (re: 20 micro-newtons per square meter)
Measured at Various Locations
Source: Information on Levels of Environmental Noise
Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare
With an Adequate Margin of Safety, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1974
13.
•
Maximum Sound Level
Shaded Area in Which
Energy is Summed to
10 dB Obtain Total Energy
for the Event - Sound
Exposure Level
u
u
J
Duration at 10 d8
p Below Maximum
u '
•
S
Residual Level
•
Time —►
Fig. 8. Description of the Sound of a Single Event
Source: Noise in America, The Extent of the Noise
Problem, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
September 1981 (EPA Report 550/9-81-101)
14 .
Key Descriptors of Sound
For the purpose of quantifying environmental sound in this
discussion, four quantities listed in Table 1 are useful. All
are based on the A-weighing which accounts approximately for the
frequency response of the human ear. All have logarithmic
scales, all use the decibel (dB) as their unit, and all have the
same magnitude of the reference sound pressure of 20 micron-
newtons per square meter.
The sound level (L) in decibels is the quantity read on an
ordinary sound level meter. It fluctuates with time following
the fluctuations in magnitude of the sound. Its maximum value
(Lmax) is one of the descriptors often used to characterize the
sound of an airplane flyby. However, Lmax only gives the maximum
magnitude of a sound - it does not contain any information on the
duration of the sound. Clearly if two sounds have the same
maximum level the sound that lasts longest will generally cause
more interference with human activity than does the one that
lasts for a shorter time.
Both of these factors are included in the concept of sound
exposure which adds up all of the sound occurring in a stated
time period or during a specific event. The logarithmic form -
Sound Exposure Level (SEL) - is read from integrating sound level
meters and is the quantity that best describes the totality of
the noise from an airplane flyby.
The equivalent sound level (Leq) is simply the log of the average
value of the sound exposure during a stated time period. It is
often used to describe sounds with respect to their potential for
interfering with human activity, e.g. , speech interference.
A special form of Leg is the day-night sound level (Ldn) . Ldn is
calculated by adding up all the sound exposure during daytime
(0700-2200 hours) plus 10 times the sound exposure occurring
during the nighttime (2200-0700 hours) and averaging this total
sum by the number of seconds during a 24 hour day. The
multiplication factor of 10 applied to the nighttime sound
exposure is often referred to as applying a penalty of 10 dB to
noises that occur at night. The Ldn was developed by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for use in describing
environmental noise and estimating its potential effects on
humans.
In 1980 a Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise published
Guidelines for Considering Noise in Land Use Planning and
Control. This committee included the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Department of Housing and Urban Development,
Department of Transportation, Department of Defense, and the
Veterans Administration. Its report classifies noise exposure as
described by DNL as shown by Table 2.
15
Table 1 Principal Descriptors of Environmental Sound
Symbol
quantity Abbreviation Descriptor Uses
Sound Level L Mean square value of Describes magnitude
A-weighted sound of a sound at e
pressure level at specific position
any time re: a refer- and time.
once pressure.
Sound Le Time integral of the Describes magnitude
Exposure men swore A-weight- of all of the sound
Level ed sound pressure re at a specific posi-
a mean square refer- tin accumulated
nee pressure and during a specific
1 second duration. event, or for a
stated time interval.
Equivalent Leg Level of a steady Describes average
Sound Level surd which has the (energy) state of
same sound exposure environment. Usually
level as does ■ employed for aura-
time-varying sound ation of:
over a stated time 1 hr 0Leq(1)),
interval 6 hr (Leq(6)), or
24 hr(Leq(24)).
Day/Night Lan Equivalent sound Describes average
Sound Level level for a 24 hr envirament in rest-
period with a •10 dentist situations
weighting applied accounting for effect
to all sacral occur- of nighttime noises
ring between 10 p.m. often is averaged
and 7 a.m, over a 365-day year
(TDIL).
•
16.
° a c • a p ._ wQ
C w .c
w f. V - 2'-14 V ..0.
° o t a w Y w . E L a
> L _ r C
A> . C M C w a •Y 4.
•
- C w el w C M Z c ^ O.w
- ^ a a. w C > C Y OCu - O
e 9 E e — ° •s = E o` -s a o a Y
Ea pE Eu wu E C- LS oL.e .i.c
U Y '• to uE ° C aC V - pE L , �LCY
asis a Ya EE E ? P, OE as to ; » ;
_ d E a E c a c> e . � 41 CS O
e � a�
4 V< S w Y E V C V Y E C t
b V a 6 a C•• >E v C -ap • a Y so
Mso w V 00
O A Y y w w V M L w ' p •C w t. Y 44 �! O L.
e 'S.5 OS Oa O- ° - , `O ua °s
bum Zw Zi Z i 2a Z > •c 6 •
c a .p.�a
b W .i eE • • w
04..4 A. be a to t. w c Et : �
m 0 O e t to
a Ila i E i > Y Y 'C o n w t y �. e
H p Z < ey7 H r. •. yr, f ycL ayw o Y. w
el owl O c u ; s Cc '-i ; C
> -• z
me = a aE <= = o
btl O Z 4'4 C O f Z
m W CO Y a e
w a T Su el a•
as e P e e
eo 3 a _ _
O C a r • •C •“ Y C el
C
M W - 2 < P. „ <= _ J `• a°^ O
wl O Ea 2
ly 0 xi. _e lZ .c,c V b .
m M Si. 7 p- ; j c
d 0 it kl g • c 40 a "_ ■
O Al O w• C' O a
Y L O . C - C ^ ° r 0
m —1 e.) e Or a . N P N '.p 1^ ` O• Y Z E a C Y
a r) CI a _Y O O r - p G^ p w w
O A b t Y a a E .G a C_ C a ° • •
p y r
m L^ C F fA - =a 7. C C
m e a = C .-. > C aY l
.i +1 or c } fC w_'.JA
oma =s e- pa� o .. Qg
'F. m a O •i�� A P P tF A 7 e T a O Y � c s •e
W 4.) al • feis a 8 8 8 ;� � Ec act
o - al C " 8a
C . _ 14 .. 6/ 4461 '5 C y >
w < C w ° V J1 e. w
W m 9 C 3 Y > O az.� Y
4J O m . • cc i c °Y c.5
O U D se
- ° _ p ° t o a< i. u
m Q y w as Z- a w• ; - 7 _ �1 p- C J •--P 9 p y' O G
w -C S fl
m e w O_ " u
= .34.,y O = 3 Y "..., z40 Z C 9
W w�° i w O :JO 3zv 3z0 3Z0 " ^ EJg - .•eY • ot
a • i :7 0 O L
w r.• Y
N w y• `≥ uc 9 i. CLQ
lri C V 9 f V < •
Y a.a • C• 0 gi.C C Y
r- oro
A To a ... • ot
N a
E ea rZa
ESP
i
an
< a
O
•
p • C
N
17.
The report suggested land use compatibility guidelines designate
noise zones below Ldn 65 dB as compatible for residential use,
but also states:
"The designation of these uses as "compatible" in this zone
reflects individual Federal agencies consideration of
general cost and feasibility factors as well as past
community experiences and program objectives. Localities,
when evaluating the application of these guidelines to
specific situations, may have different concerns or goals to
consider. For an indication of possible community noise,
Table D-1 should be consulted. "
Table D-1 is taken directly from the Interagency report
referenced above. It summarizes the typical findings of the
effects of noise on people in residential areas. Table D-1
classifies noise at an DNL (Ldn) value of 65 dB as "significant. "
Below this level, noise is indicated to be "moderate" to
"slight. " According to the table, there will still be a certain
percentage of the population highly annoyed below 65 dB. This
percentage decreases as the DNL level decreases. Quoting from
footnote 4 of table D-1, "Noise at low levels can still be an
important problem, particularly when it intrudes into a quiet
environment. "
The FAA has combined the suggestions of the Interagency Committee
and others in its table of land use compatibility with Yearly
Day-Night Average Sound Levels in its FAR Part 150 Regulation.
This table is reproduced here as Table 3. It suggests that areas
where the yearly Ldn is less than 65 dB are compatible for
residential use. FAR Part 150, Appendix A, Section A.150. 101(b) ,
states:
" (b) Table 1 of this appendix describes compatible land use
information for several land uses as a function of YDNL
values. The ranges of YDNL values in Table 1 reflect the
statistical variability for the responses of large groups of
people to noise. Any particular level might not, therefore,
accurately assess an individual's perception of an actual
noise environment. Compatible or non-compatible land use is
determined by comparing the predicted or measured YDNL
values at a site with the values given. Adjustments or
modifications of the descriptions of the land-use categories
may be desirable after consideration of specific local
conditions. "
Day Night Average Sound Level (DNLI
In 1981, the Federal Aviation Administration formally adopted Day
Night Average Sound Level (DNL) as the single system for
determining exposure of individuals to airport noise. DNL is the
18
111 + m a a
1 1 I z
i 8 zzz zzzz>-z zzzzz zziz, zzzzz ill a VI le Jo 1 zzz zzzz>-,- • . a 1'
r z>zsz azsz, R zzzzz
_1st 1
1 $ _
-,
O . I zd zzzRE> Ri'Rh )gl z, zzzzR 11.1 g ddII
•l I4 yyat
tai i le i 5� L : y a
w zz₹ ₹RRIC>i Xls- COR $7lEE, irzz,lC 9 11 tt :_ 11 •JIJ111
kk • s �
•+ 1: Ill
ii o2 f >,..,.. .>,..,.. . 1 a t
I
, ,
Ili 1
a 3 I III n ill P11111 .
a ig l . I_
It R i I ill . 1 E ; t
8 a i I Jib 1111 1 I 1 I 1
�+ 14 a
m el I iii
SCR t�® E 4 EnR
F I
zjI; ifl
i
I ll 11 2 I pi If
litf BI a_a• is r IIJ; . `,i'i i8
I ii if
jIiu it111 1 tII fj II - �E! i 1a.iaal
l g S$ sbli F 4131: 111111111113111
131: 11111 a. . .
lei iii I I 1 Ile if boffniggiallit i_il ...
, • li It -I I li 1 ii nil 3 I•
19.
most widely accepted descriptor for aviation noise because of the
following characteristics:
1. DNL is a measurable quantity.
2. DNL is simple to understand and use by airport planners
and the public who are not familiar with acoustics or
acoustical theory.
3. DNL provides a simple method to compare the
effectiveness of alternative airport scenarios.
4 . DNL is a "figure of merit" for noise impacts which is
based on communities reactions to environmental noise.
5. DNL is the best measure of noise exposure to identify
significant impacts on the quality of the human
environment.
6. By Federal interagency agreement, DNL is the best
descriptor of all noise sources for land use
compatibility planning.
7. DNL is the only metric with a substantial body of
scientific survey data on the reactions of people to
noise.
Day Night Average Sound level, abbreviated as DNL and symbolized
as Ldn, is the 24 hour average sound level, in decibels, obtained
from the accumulation of all events with the addition of
10 decibels to sound levels in the night from 10 P.M. to 7 A.M.
The weighing of nighttime events accounts for the usual increased
interfering effects of noise during the night, when ambient
levels are lower and people are trying to sleep.
The emergence of DNL as the standard descriptor of aviation noise
and the figure of merit in land use compatibility planning, is
due chiefly to the efforts of the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) . In the spring of 1973 , in an effort to comply with
the Noise Control Act of 1972, EPA convened a task group with the
function to, "consider the characterization of the impact of
airport community noise and to develop a community noise exposure
measure. " To accomplish this, the task group had to: determine
the merits and shortcomings of methods to characterize the impact
of the noise of present or proposed airport operations on the
public health and welfare; determine which of such methods is
most suitable for adoption by the Federal Government; and
determine the implications of issuing Federal regulations
establishing a standard method of characterizing the aviation
noise, and of specifying maximum permissible levels for public
health and welfare. The task group's recommendations included
the following:
20
1. Adoption of the Day Night Average Sound Level (DNL) as
the measure of environmental noise.
2. This measure should be used for aircraft noise studies
and airport noise standards.
3. The prediction procedures should be standardized.
In 1976, EPA formally recommended that FAA adopt DNL as the
standard aircraft noise descriptor. FAA's decision to adopt DNL
was also based on a number of other factors. In 1980, the
Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise consolidated Federal
guidance on the incorporation of noise considerations in local
land planning and site review "to encourage noise sensitive
development, such as housing, to be located away from major noise
sources. " Members of the committee included U.S. EPA, U. S.
Department of Transportation (DOT) , U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) , U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) and
the Veterans Administration (VA) . The Committee adopted DNL as
the best descriptor of noise for land use planning and
established related land use compatibility guidelines. In the
same year, the Acoustical Society of America developed an
American National Standard (ANSI S3.23-1980) which specified DNL
as the acoustical measure to be used in assessing compatibility
between various land uses and the outdoor noise environment. In
addition, Congress established a voluntary program of airport
noise compatibility planning (Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement
Act) and directed FAA to issue regulations which would:
a. establish a single system of noise measurement to be
uniformly applied in measuring noise at airports and in
surrounding areas for which there is a highly reliable
relationship between projected noise and surveyed
reaction of people to noise;
b. establish a single system for determining the exposure
of individuals to noise which results from the
operations of an airport; and
c. identify land uses which are normally compatible with
various exposures of individuals to noise.
Accordingly, in 1981, FAA issued Federal Aviation Regulations
(FAR) Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning. As part of
this regulation, FAA formally adopted DNL.
Beyond the political and regulatory factors and the need for
standardization, the adoption of DNL was the clear choice on
scientific grounds. In general, the effects of noise on people
results from complex relationships of numerous factors, and
separating the effects of these often confounding factors is
impractical if not impossible. The variability in the way
21
individuals react to noise makes it impossible to accurately
predict how any one individual will respond to a given noise.
However, when the community is considered as a whole, trends
emerge which relate noise to annoyance. DNL alone provides an
adequate indicator of community annoyance to aircraft noise.
Other recent studies continue to indicate that DNL is the
descriptor of choice in representing community reaction to noises
of all kinds. A recent study to assess the nighttime weighing
factor used in DNL concluded that there is no credible evidence
to use anything other than the accepted DNL ("Cumulative Airport
Noise Exposure Metrics: An Assessment of the Evidence for Time-
of-Day Weightings, " DOT/FAA/EE-86/10) . Another study concluded
that DNL satisfactorily represented surveyed community annoyance
from helicopter noise for flyovers as infrequent as one operation
per day ("A Community Survey of Helicopter Noise Annoyance
Conducted under Controlled Noise Exposure Conditions, " NASA Tech.
Memo 86400) . Given that annoyance is a phenomenon for which
there is no perfect descriptor, all known research illustrate
that DNL provides an excellent portrayal of airport noise
exposure for the purposes of assessing land use compatibility and
controlling noise.
Single Event Noise Level
The use of single event noise levels provides a means of
comparing individual aircraft flyovers and aircraft operating
procedures, such as, quantifying the merits of different noise
abatement procedures. FAA Order 1050.1D, Polices and Procedures
for Considering Environmental Impacts, also indicates that single
event levels, in terms of Sound Exposure Level (SEL) , Maximum A-
weighted Sound Level (ALm) , and one-third octave sound pressure
levels, are important for investigating noise sensitive sites for
possible soundproofing projects. As described in the section,
Measures of Sound, sound is measured on a decibel scale (dB) as a
convenient means of representing the typical range of sound
pressures; A-weighing (dBA) simulates the reaction of the human
ear to the frequency spectrum of a sound; and Sound Exposure
Level (SEL) characterizes not only the maximum magnitude of a
sound in dBA, but also the duration.
ALm is useful for comparing the loudness of different events,
such as, aircraft flyovers. The maximum level can be easily
understood in terms of everyday experience with aircraft noise
and other common sources as shown in the accompanying charts of
common noise sources.
In addition to the magnitude of sound as measured in terms of
ALm, another characteristic is its duration. SEL is a measure of
the total sound energy of an event taking in to account
amplitude, frequency and duration. SEL is a little more
complicated to envision than ALm, but the duration factor has
22
significant implications for identifying annoyance. If the sound
of an event is of sufficient magnitude to intrude on an activity
such as conversation, then the duration of that event could
affect the degree of annoyance. The more events, the higher the
degree of annoyance. Thus, the measure of community annoyance to
aircraft noise is Day Night Average Sound Level (DNL) which is
the accumulation of SEL events over a 24 hour period with a 10
decibel penalty applied to the nighttime events.
Because SEL includes both magnitude and duration,. the SEL of an
event will always be higher than the corresponding ALm; and, for
aircraft events, SEL will consistently track with the maximum
level. For many common noise sources, the SEL cannot be easily
determined, even when the ALm is known, because the duration of
the event is an unknown and uncontrolled quantity. But, for
moving objects, such as an aircraft flyover, the duration of the
noise event is determined by the speed of the object, i.e. the
aircraft velocity, and the distance from source to the receptor.
Typically, the farther the distance, the longer the duration. A
general rule of thumb for aircraft flyovers is that the
difference between SEL and ALm is between 5 and 10 decibels. For
example, if computer analysis indicates a takeoff generates SEL
80 dB at a given location, then the ALm is probably between
70 and 75 dBA. This information can then be used to relate back
to other common noise sources through the use of the following
charts of common sounds versus dB(A) levels. In the previous
example the ALm was determined to be between 70 and 75 dB(A) ,
this is equivalent to the sound level produced by a vacuum
cleaner at 10 feet from the listener.
Sleep/Speech Disturbance
There is a large body of research documenting the effect of noise
on sleep disturbance, but the long-term effects of sleep
disturbance caused by nighttime airport operations is not
conclusively known. The FAA Report, Aviation Noise Effects
(Report No. FAA-EE-85-2) provides a compendium of aviation-
related research. It is clear that sleep is essential for good
physical and emotional health; noise can interfere with sleep,
even when the sleeper is not consciously awakened; and nighttime
operations will interfere with the sleep of some people. Thus,
sleep disturbance is one of the factors contributing to aircraft
noise annoyance.
The variability in the way individuals react to noise makes it
impossible to accurately predict how any one individual will
respond to a given noise. However when the community is
considered as a whole, trends emerge which relate noise to
annoyance. In identifying levels for interference, the EPA's
publication entitled: Information on Levels of Environmental
Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an
Adequate Margin of Safety (550/9-74-004) , proclaims:
23
COMMON OUTDOOR NOISE LEVEL COMMON INDOOR
SOUND LEVELS dB (A) SOUND LEVELS
110 Rock Band
8-747 Takeoff at 2 mL 100 inside Subway Train
Gas Lawn Mower at 3 ft. (New York)
90
Diesel Truck at . 50 ft
DC-9-30 Takeoff at 2 mL Food Blender at 3 ft.
Noisy Urban Daytime - Garbage Disposal at 3 ft.
80 Shouting at 3 ft.
B-757 Takeoff at 2 mL
70 Vacuum Cleaner at 10 ft
•
Commercial Area Normal Speech at 3 ft
60
Quiet Urban Daytime i Large Business Office
50 Dishwasher Next Room
I
Quiet Urban Nighttime i` ,'-: 40
Large
Quiet Suburban Nighttime L Sma Theatre,
Conference Room Room
(background)
"'" 30 Ubrery
Quiet Rural Nighttime \ 1 Bedroom at Night
t'��`� Concert Hap (Background)
�`'.r 20
Broadcast & Recording
10 Studio
Threshold of Hearing
0
• FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION SEMINAR PRESENTED BY BOLT
BERANEK AND NEWMAN, INC.NOISE CONTROL PLAN DEVELOPMENT, 1979
• FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION ADVISORY CIRCULAR 36-30,ESTIMATED
AIRPLANE NOISE LEVELS IN A-WEIGHTED DECIBELS,1983
24
SOUND LEVEL 1 LOUDNESS
1 COMMON SOUNDS , dBA 1 -Compared to TO dBA
—130
Oxygen Torch —120 UNCOMFORTABLE
4 32X AS LOUD
Rock Band —110 �-'A
707 Landing at 370 ft. I
707 Takeoff at 1000 ft. -100 VERY LOUD i 16X AS LOUD
- 90 ; '
Diesel Truck at 50 ft.
-80 14X AS LOUD
Garbage Disposal MODERATE I
Vacuum_Cleaner at 10 ft. -70
•
1/4 AS LOUD •
Air Conditioner at 100 ft. -- 60
t 1--r-
Quiet Urban Daytime —50 QUIET I
t 1
1/16 AS LOUD
Quiet Urban Nighttime —40
s
I.
Bedroom at Night
--30
-20
Recording Studio
-1 0 JUST
AUDIBLE
Threshold of Hearing
—0
Sources: Aviation Planning Associates; CalSati nsrof uraA
o Maximum
-weig ted,h
ted
Sound Levels (dBA) Resulting From
1978, p. 187 Seminar on Noise Control Plan Development, presented
for Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration
by Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc. , 1979, p. 17.
25
"Although speech-interference has been identified as the
primary interference of noise with human activities and is
one of the primary reasons for adverse community reactions
to noise and long-term annoyance, the 10 dB nighttime
weighing (and, hence, the term Ldn) is applied to give
adequate weight to all of the other adverse effects on
activity interference. "
DNL alone provides an adequate indicator of community annoyance
to aircraft noise. EPA, in the aforementioned report, states
"This formula of equivalent level (DNL) is used here to relate
noise in residential environments to chronic annoyance by speech
interference and in some part by sleep and activity
interference. "
EPA's conclusion is partially predicated on the fact that the
relationship between other interference factors, such as , sleep
interference, and the desired level of sound are not well
quantified. All of the sleep disturbance research done to date
has been in the laboratory and, as the researchers point out,
what relationships they have derived in the lab experiments
cannot be applied to home experience (Lukas, J.S. , Noise and
Sleep: A Literature Review and a Proposed Criterion for Assessing
Effect) . In a recent study, the United States Air Force (USAF)
attempted to develop a means of predicting the effects of
aircraft noise upon sleep. However, the development of such a
model was not possible because of the lack of appropriate field
studies and the large discrepancies between the laboratory and
field studies that had been conducted. In this report titled,
Analysis of the Predictability of Noise-induced Sleep Disturbance
(HSD-TR-89-029, October 1989) , USAF concluded that, "Available
data do not support construction of a reliable and useful dose
response relationship between noise exposure and sleep
disturbance. The influence of noise on sleep depends on a
variety of factors: the noise metric chosen, the response metric
chosen, consideration of non-noise factors affecting the
relationship, and how the study is conducted. "
Non-Auditory Health Effects
The fact that airport noise above a certain level annoys airport
neighbors is generally accepted, but whether or not that noise
causes any physical or mental damage is far less established.
FAA Report, Aviation Noise Effects (Report No. FAA-EE-85-2)
contains a review of some of the pertinent studies dealing with
the non-auditory effects of aircraft noise on people.
Most survey studies on this subject found that there is little
reliable evidence on the relationship between noise exposure and
human physiological or behavioral effects. In fact many of the
studies directly contradict each other on the cause and effect
upon mortality rates, birth defects and incidents of
26
cardiovascular problems. While a cause and effect relationship
has not been proved, experiments have shown that noise should be
viewed as a risk factor. Further research is necessary giving
special attention to critical groups, such as, pregnant women,
children, older people, and people with cardiovascular diseases.
27
APPENDIX E
AIR EMISSIONS INVENTORY AND MODELING ANALYSIS
E-1
>SION REPORT
(all values are in grams/year)
iy5y
CARBON NITROGEN SULPHUR
MONOXIDE HYDROCARBONS OXIDES OXIDES PARTICULATES
ROADWAYS 5.672E+06 4.472E+05 2.362E+05 1.407E+02 9.336E+02
VEH. PARKING 2.149E+06 1.618E+05 3.508E+04 1.598E+01 1.060E+02
STORAGE TANKS 0.000E+00 3.876E+06 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
GRND. SUP. EOU. 3.085E+06 6.763E+05 7.169E+05 1.598E+04 4.675E+04
AIRCRAFT 7.309E+08 2.041E+07 3.539E+06 3.118E+05 0.000E+00
GRAND TOTAL 7.418E+OB 2.558E+07 4.527E+06 3.279E+05 4.779E+04
EM ON REPORT
Fell values are in grams/year)
000
CARBON NITROGEN SULPHUR
MONOXIDE HYDROCARBONS OXIDES OXIDES PARTICULATES
ROADWAYS 5.919E+06 4.667E+05 2.465E+05 1.468E+02 9.742E+02
VEH. PARKING 5.015E+06 3.775E+05 8.186E+04 3.728E+01 2.474E+02
STORAGE TANKS 0.000E+00 5.790E+06 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
GRND. SUP. •EOU. 3.554E+06 7.792E+05 8.260E+05 1.842E+04 5.387E+04
AIRCRAFT 8.252E+08 2.323E+07 4.043E+06 3.574E+05 0.000E+00
GRAND TOTAL 8.397E+08 3.064E+07 5.197E+06 3.760E+05 5.509E+04
I SION REPORT
(all values are in grams/year)
CARBON NITROGEN SULPHUR
MONOXIDE HYDROCARBONS OXIDES OXIDES PARTICULATES
ROADWAYS 6.764E+06 5.334E+05 2.817E+05 1.677E+02 1.113E+03
VEH. PARKING 5.732E+06 4.314E+05 9.355E+04 4.260E+01 2.828E+02
STORAGE TANKS 0.000E+00 5.790E+06 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
GRND. SUP. EQU. 3.688E+06 8.086E+05 8.571E+05 1.911E+04 5.590E+04
AIRCRAFT 9.173E+08 2.528E+07 4.250E+06 3.768E+05 0.000E+00
-- GRAND TOTAL 9.335E+08 3.285E+07 5.482E+06 3.961E+05 5.729E+04
E ;ION REPORT
(all values ere in grams/year)
4(V15—
CARBON NITROGEN SULPHUR
MONOXIDE HYDROCARBONS OXIDES OXIDES PARTICULATES
ROADWAYS 8.456E+06 6.667E+05 3.521E+05 2.097E+02 1.392E+03
VEH. PARKING 7.165E+06 5.393E+05 1.169E+05 5.326E+01 3.535E+02
STORAGE TANKS 0.000E+00 5.790E+06 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
GRND. SUP. EQU. 5.566E+06 1.220E+06 1.293E+06 2.884E+04 8.436E+04 _.
AIRCRAFT 1.190E+09 3.484E+07 5.944E+06 5.485E+05 0.000E+00
GRAND TOTAL 1.211E+09 4.305E+07 7.706E+06 5.776E+05 8.610E+04
RECEPT S
Receptor Name DATA32 C2638RD247
Location X 2350 Y 525
RECEPT O R S
Receptor Name DATA32 R0628RW35
_ Location X 1800 Y 1600
RECEPT O R S
Receptor Name DATA32 PROPLINE8RW34
Location X 1400 Y 4200
RECEPT O R S
Receptor Name DATA32 FENCE8RWO9
_ Location X -600 Y 1300
RECEPT O R S
Receptor Name DATA32 NEWTERMINAL
Location X 1050 Y 650
RECEPT O R S
Receptor Name DATA32 C2638RW35
Location X 1800 Y 200
DISPERSION REPORT
(Screening Mode)
CONCENTRATION - ALL SOURCES
INPUT I I OUTPUT
I RECEPTORS (m) I I CONCENTRATIONS (gm/m-3)
DATE IHR IW/SIWD IP/GI I I
Im/sIDEGIA=II N0. I X I Y I I CO I NC NOx I SOx PART
JAN- 1-00 OD 260 6 1 2350 525 4.00E-04 5.56E-05 3.18E-06 6.30E-07 9.18E-10
JAN- 1-00 Op 260 6 2 1800 1600 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
JAN- 1-00 011 260 6 3 1400 4200 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
JAN- 1-00 OD 260 6 4 -600 1300 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
JAN- 1-00 OD 260 6 5 1050 650 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
JAN- 1-00 011 260 6 6 1800 200 1.74E-08 1.31E-09 9.54E-10 6.08E-13 4.04E-12
CONCENTRATION - BY SOURCE TYPE
CARBON MONOXIDE (gm/m-3)
DATE IxWRIRECPI ROADWAYS I PARKING I POWER I HEATING I INCINER- I TRAINING I FUEL I SURFACE I AIRCRAFT AIRCRAFT I
I PLANTS PLANTS ATORS I FIRES FACILITY COATING QUEUES I TAKEOFFS
JAN- 1-00 0 1 3.960E-06 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 3.688E-04 2.716E-051
JAN- 1-00 0 2 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+C
JAN- 1-00 0 3 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+(
JAN- 1-00 0 4 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+DGI
JAN- 1-00 0 5 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+C^!
JAN- 1-00 0 6 1.742E-08 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+C
NITROGEN OXIDES Wm-3)
DATE IHDJRIRECPI ROADWAYS PARKING I POWER I HEATING INCINER- I TRAINING I FUEL SURFACE AIRCRAFT I AIRCRAFT
I PLANTS I PLANTS I ATORS I FIRES I FACILITY I COATING QUEUES TAKEOFFS
JAN- 1-00 0 1 2.168E-07 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 2.287E-06 6.767E-C
JAN- 1-00 0 2 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+Uu1
JAN- 1-00 0 3 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00I
JAN- 1-00 0 4 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+0
JAN- 1-00 0 5 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+C
JAN- 1-00 0 6 9.539E-10 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00I
DISPERSION REPORT
(Screening Mode)
CONCENTRATION - ALL SOURCES
INPUT I i OUTPUT
RECEPTORS (m) I I CONCENTRATIONS (gm/m-3)
DATE IHR IW/SIWD IP/GI I I
Im/sIDEGIA=1I NO. I X I Y CO I HC NOx I SOx PART
JAN- 1.00 OI1 270 6 1 2350 525 3.08E-04 3.80E-05 3.06E-06 4.63E-07 9.46E-10
JAN- 1-00 011 270 6 2 1800 1600 8.88E-06 8.53E-08 3.19E-07 1.55E-08 0.00E+00
JAN- 1-00 Op 270 6 3 1400 4200 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
- JAN- 1-00 OI1 270 6 4 -600 1300 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
JAN- 1.00 OI1 270 6 5 1050 650 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
JAN- 1-00 Op 270 6 6 1800 200 2.77E-06 2.09E-07 1.51E-07 9.66E-11 6.41E-10
CONCENTRATION - BY SOURCE TYPE
CARBON MONOXIDE (gm/m-3)
DATE IHOURIRECPI ROADWAYS PARKING I POWER I HEATING I INCINER- I TRAINING I FUEL 1 SURFACE I AIRCRAFT 1 AIRCRAFT
I I I I PLANTS I PLANTS I ATORS I FIRES I FACILITY I COATING I QUEUES I TAKEOFFS
JAN- 1-00 0 1 1.652E-06 1.097E-05 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 2.450E-04 5.045E-05
JAN- 1-00 0 2 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 8.882E-06
JAN- 1-00 0 3 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
JAN- 1-00 0 4 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
- JAN- 1-00 0 5 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
JAN- 1-00 0 6 2.767E-06 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
NITROGEN OXIDES (gm/m-3)
DATE IHOURIRECPI ROADWAYS I PARKING I POWER I HEATING I INCINER- I TRAINING I FUEL I SURFACE I AIRCRAFT I AIRCRAFT
I I I I PLANTS I PLANTS I ATORS I FIRES I FACILITY I COATING I QUEUES I TAKEOFFS
JAN- 1-00 0 1 9.042E-08 1.928E-07 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 1.519E-06 1.257E-06
JAN- 1-00 0 2 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 3.194E-07
JAN- 1-00 0 3 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
JAN- 1-00 0 4 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
JAN- 1-00 0 5 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
JAN- 1-00 0 6 1.515E-07 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
DISPERSION REPORT
(Screening Mode)CONCENTRATION - ALL SOURCES
INPUT i I OUTPUT
I RECEPTORS (m) I I CONCENTRATIONS (gm/m-3)
DATE IHR IW/SIWD IP/GI I I
I Im/sIDEGIA=II NO. I X I Y I CO I HC NOx I SOx I PART
JAN- 1-00 OI1 280 6 1 2350 525 1.27E-04 9.74E-06 2.03E-06 1.88E-07 1.99E-13
JAN- 1-00 Op 280 6 2 1800 1600 8.72E-06 8.38E-O8 3.14E-07 1.52E-08 0.00E+00
JAN- 1-00 Olt 280 6 3 1400 4200 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
JAN- 1-00 Olt 280 6 4 -600 1300 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
JAN- 1-00 OI1 280 6 5 1050 650 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
JAN- 1.00 Op 280 6 6 1800 200 5.56E-06 4.20E-07 3.05E-07 1.94E-10 1.29E-09
CONCENTRATION - BY SOURCE TYPE
CARBON MONOXIDE (gm/m-3)
DATE I HOURIRECPI ROADWAYS I PARKING I POWER I HEATING I INCINER- I TRAINING I FUEL I SURFACE I AIRCRAFT I AIRCRAFT I
I PLANTS I PLANTS I ATORS I FIRES I FACILITY I COATING I QUEUES I TAKEOFFS
JAN- 1-00 0 1 6.198E-10 1.083E-09 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 6.081E-05 6.623E-05I
JAN- 1.00 0 2 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 8.723E-C
JAN- 1-00 0 3 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+(
JAN- 1-00 0 4 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00I
JAN- 1-00 0 5 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+Pa
JAN- 1-00 0 6 5.563E-0b 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+C
NITROGEN OXIDES (gm/R-3) I
DATE IHOURIRECPI ROADWAYS I PARKING I POWER I HEATING I INCINER- I TRAINING I FUEL I SURFACE I AIRCRAFT I AIRCRAFT
I PLANTS I PLANTS I ATORS I FIRES I FACILITY I COATING I QUEUES I TAKEOFFS I
JAN- 1-00 0 1 3.393E-11 1.903E-11 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 3.771E-07 1.650E-C
JAN- 1-00 0 2 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 3.137E-Gil
JAN- 1.00 0 3 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00i
JAN- 1-00 0 4 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+0
JAN- 1-00 0 5 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+0
JAN- 1.00 0 6 3.045E-07 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+OOI
DISPERSION REPORT
(Screening Mode)
CONCENTRATION - ALL SOURCES
INPUT I I OUTPUT
RECEPTORS (m) I I CONCENTRATIONS (gm/m-3)
DATE HR IW/SIWD IP/GI I I
Im/SIDEGIA=1I NO. I X I Y I I CO I HC I NOx I SOx I PART
JAN- 1-00 011 80 6 1 2350 525 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
JAN- 1-00 011 80 6 2 1800 1600 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
JAN- 1-00 011 80 6 3 1400 4200 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
JAN- 1-00 011 80 6 4 -600 1300 3.39E-06 3.26E-08 1.22E-07 5.92E-09 0.00E+00
JAN- 1-00 011 80 6 5 1050 650 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
JAN- 1-00 011 80 6 6 1800 200 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
CONCENTRATION - BY SOURCE TYPE
CARBON MONOXIDE (gm/m-3)
DATE IHOURIRECPI ROADWAYS 1 PARKING I POWER I HEATING 1 INCINER- I TRAINING I FUEL I SURFACE 1 AIRCRAFT I AIRCRAFT
I I 1 PLANTS 1 PLANTS I ATORS I FIRES 1 FACILITY I COATING I QUEUES 1 TAKEOFFS
JAN- 1-00 0 1 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
JAN- 1-00 0 2 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
JAN- 1-00 0 3 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
JAN- 1-00 0 4 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 3.395E-06
- JAN- 1-00 0 5 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
JAN- 1-00 0 6 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 O.DOOE+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
NITROGEN OXIDES (gm/m'3)
DATE IHOURIRECPI ROADWAYS I PARKING 1 POWER 1 HEATING 1 INCINER- I TRAINING I FUEL I SURFACE 1 AIRCRAFT I AIRCRAFT
I I 1 I PLANTS PLANTS I ATORS I FIRES I FACILITY I COATING I QUEUES I TAKEOFFS
JAN- 1-00 0 1 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+OD 0.000E+00 0.DOOE+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
JAN- 1-00 0 2 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
JAN- 1-00 0 3 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
JAN- 1-00 0 4 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 1.221E-07
JAN- 1-00 0 5 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
JAN- 1-00 0 6 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
DISPERSION REPORT
(Screening Mode)
CONCENTRATION - ALL SOURCES
INPUT I I OUTPUT
I RECEPTORS (m) I I CONCENTRATIONS (gm/ni 3)
DATE IHR IW/SIWD IP/GI I I
Im/sIDEGIA=1I NO. I x I Y I I CO I HC I NOx I SOx I PART
JAN- 1-00 OD 90 6 1 2350 525 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
JAN- 1-00 OD 90 6 2 1800 1600 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
JAN- 1.00 OD 90 6 3 1400 4200 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
JAN- 1-00 OD 90 6 4 -600 1300 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
JAN- 1-00 OI1 90 6 5 1050 650 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
JAN- 1-00 OD 90 6 6 1800 200 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
CONCENTRATION - BY SOURCE TYPE
CARBON MONOXIDE (gm/m-3)
DATE IHWRIRECPI ROADWAYS I PARKING I POWER I HEATING I INCINER- I TRAINING I FUEL I SURFACE I AIRCRAFT I AIRCRAFT 1.
PLANTS I PLANTS I ATORS I FIRES I FACILITY I COATING I QUEUES I TAKEOFFS
JAN- 1-00 0 1 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E*00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+OOI
JAN- 1-00 0 2 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+0'
JAN- 1-00 0 3 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+0
JAN- 1-00 0 4 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00I
JAN- 1-00 0 5 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+0°i
JAN- 1-00 0 6 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+O'
NITROGEN OXIDES (gm/m-3)
DATE IHWRIRECPI ROADWAYS I PARKING I POWER I HEATING I INCINER- I TRAINING I FUEL I SURFACE I AIRCRAFT I AIRCRAFT
PLANTS I PLANTS I ATORS I FIRES I FACILITY I COATING I QUEUES I TAKEOFFS I
1
JAN- 1-00 0 1 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+0
JAN- 1-00 0 2 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+0u1
JAN- 1-00 0 3 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 G.000E+00(
JAN- .1-00 0 4 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+Or
JAN- 1-00 0 5 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+Oi
JAN- 1-00 0 6 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+OOI
DISPERSION REPORT
(Screening Mode)
CONCENTRATION - ALL SOURCES
INPUT I I OUTPUT
I RECEPTORS (m) I I CONCENTRATIONS (9m/m-3)
DATE IHR IW/SIWD IP/GII I I
Im/sIDEGIA=II NO. I X I Y I I CO I HC I NOx I SOx I PART
JAN- 1-00 011 100 6 1 2350 525 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
JAN- 1-00 011 100 6 2 1800 1600 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
JAN- 1-00 011 100 6 3 1400 4200 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
JAN- 1-00 011 100 6 4 -600 1300 4.01E-06 3.75E-07 5.50E-08 6.06E-09 0.00E+00
JAN- 1-00 011 100 6 5 1050 650 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
JAN- 1-00 011 100 6 6 1800 200 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
CONCENTRATION - BY SOURCE TYPE
CARBON MONOXIDE (gm/m 3)
DATE IHOURIRECPI ROADWAYS 1 PARKING 1 POWER I HEATING I INCINER- I TRAINING I FUEL I SURFACE I AIRCRAFT I AIRCRAFT
I I I I I PLANTS I PLANTS I ATORS I FIRES I FACILITY I COATING I QUEUES I TAKEOFFS
JAN- 1-00 0 1 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
JAN- 1-00 0 2 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
JAN- 1-00 0 3 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
JAN- 1-00 0 4 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 2.406E-06 1.608E-06
JAN- 1-00 0 5 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
JAN- 1.00 0 6 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
NITROGEN OXIDES (gm/m-3)
DATE IHOURIRECPI ROADWAYS 1 PARKING 1 POWER I HEATING I INCINER- 1 TRAINING I FUEL I SURFACE I AIRCRAFT I AIRCRAFT
I I I I 1 PLANTS 1 PLANTS I ATORS 1 FIRES I FACILITY I COATING 1 QUEUES I TAKEOFFS
JAN- 1-00 0 1 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
JAN- 1-00 0 2 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
JAN- 1-00 0 3 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
JAN- 1-00 0 4 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 1.492E-08 4.006E-08
JAN- 1-00 0 5 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
JAN- 1-00 0 6 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
DISPERSION REPORT
(Screening Mode)
CONCENTRATION - ALL SOURCES
INPUT I I OUTPUT
I RECEPTORS (m) I I CONCENTRATIONS (Wm-3)
DATE IHR IW/SIWD IP/GI I I
Im/sIDEGIA=1I N0. I X I Y I I CO I HC I NOR I SOx I PART
JAN- 1-00 011 170 6 1 2350 525 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
JAN- 1-00 011 170 6 2 1800 1600 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
JAN- 1-00 011 170 6 3 1400 4200 2.34E-05 2.31E-06 4.59E-07 4.39E-08 0.00E+00
JAN- 1-00 011 170 6 4 -600 1300 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
JAN- 1-00 011 170 6 5 1050 650 8.12E-05 5.75E-06 1.43E-06 6.28E-10 4.17E-09
JAN- 1-00 011 170 6 6 1800 200 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
CONCENTRATION - BY SOURCE TYPE
CARBON MONOXIDE (gm/m"3)
DATE IHWRIRECPI ROADWAYS I PARKING I POWER I HEATING I INCINER- I TRAINING 1 FUEL I SURFACE i AIRCRAFT I AIRCRAFT_I
I I I I I PLANTS I PLANTS 1 ATORS I FIRES 1 FACILITY I COATING I QUEUES 1 TAKEOFFS
JAN- 1-00 0 1 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+001
JAN- 1-00 0 2 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+0
JAN- 1-00 0 3 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 1.375E-05 9.606E-0
JAN- 1-00 0 4 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+001
JAN- 1-00 0 5 1.165E-08 8.115E-05 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+Onl
JAN- 1-00 0 6 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+0
NITROGEN OXIDES (9m/m-3) 1
DATE IHWRIRECPI ROADWAYS i PARKING I POWER I HEATING I INCINER- I TRAINING I FUEL I SURFACE I AIRCRAFT 1 AIRCRAFT
PLANTS 1 PLANTS I ATORS I FIRES I FACILITY I COATING I QUEUES i TAKEOFFS I
JAN- 1-00 0 1 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+C
JAN- 1-00 0 2 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+C,.1
JAN- 1-00 0 3 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 1.139E-07 3.455E-071
JAN- 1-00 0 4 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+0
JAN- 1-00 0 5 6.377E-10 1.426E-06 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+0
JAN- 1.00 0 6 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+001
DISPERSION REPORT
(Screening Mode)
CONCENTRATION - ALL SOURCES
INPUT I I OUTPUT
RECEPTORS (m) I I CONCENTRATIONS (gm/m'3)
DATE IER IW/SIWD IP/GI I I
I Im/sIDEGIA=11 NO. I X I Y I I CO I NC I NON I SOx I PART
JAN- 1.00 011 180 6 1 2350 525 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
JAN- 1-00 011 180 6 2 1800 1600 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
JAN- 1-00 011 180 6 3 1400 4200 5.57E-04 7.57E-05 7.16E-06 1.08E-06 1.82E-11
JAN- 1-00 011 180 6 4 -600 1300 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
JAN- 1-00 011 180 6 5 1050 650 1.26E-04 8.96E-06 2.38E-06 1.09E-09 7.25E-09
JAN- 1-00 011 180 6 6 1800 200 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
CONCENTRATION - BY SOURCE TYPE
CARBON MONOXIDE (gm/m3)
DATE IHOURIRECPI ROADWAYS I PARKING 1 POWER I HEATING I INCINER- I TRAINING I FUEL I SURFACE I AIRCRAFT I AIRCRAFT
I I I I I PLANTS 1 PLANTS 1 ATORS I FIRES I FACILITY I COATING 1 QUEUES I TAKEOFFS
JAN- 1-00 0 1 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
- JAN- 1-00 0 2 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
JAN- 1-00 0 3 7.567E-08 1.377E-08 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 4.645E-04 9.200E-05
JAN- 1-00 0 4 0.000E+00 0-000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
-- JAN- 1-00 0 5 4.287E-06 1.218E-04 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
JAN- 1-00 0 6 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
NITROGEN OXIDES (gm/m-3)
DATE 1 HOURIRECPI ROADWAYS I PARKING I POWER I HEATING 11NCINER- I TRAINING I FUEL I SURFACE I AIRCRAFT 1 AIRCRAFT
I I I I I PLANTS I PLANTS I ATORS I FIRES I FACILITY I COATING I QUEUES I TAKEOFFS
JAN- 1-00 0 1 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
JAN- 1-00 0 2 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
JAN- 1-00 0 3 4.142E-09 2.419E-10 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 3.847E-06 3.308E-06
JAN- 1-00 0 4 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
JAN- 1-00 0 5 2.347E-07 2.141E-06 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
JAN- 1-00 0 6 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
DISPERSION REPORT
(Screening Mode)
CONCENTRATION - ALL SOURCES
INPUT I I OUTPUT
I RECEPTORS (m) I I CONCENTRATIONS (gm/m-3)
DATE IHR IW/SIWD IP/GI I I
Im/sIDEGIA=1I NO. I X I Y I I CO I HC I NOx I SOx I PART
JAN- 1-00 011 190 6 1 2350 525 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
JAN- 1-00 011 190 6 2 1800 1600 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
JAN- 1-00 011 190 6 3 1400 4200 3.78E-06 4.19E-07 6.36E-08 5.91E-09 8.10E-11
JAN- 1.00 011 190 6 4 -600 1300 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
JAN- 1-00 011 190 6 5 1050 650 1.77E-04 1.26E-05 3.66E-06 1.77E-09 1.18E-08
JAN- 1-00 011 190 6 6 1800 200 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
CONCENTRATION - BY SOURCE TYPE
CARBON MONOXIDE (gm/m-3)
DATE 1HWRIRECPI ROADWAYS I PARKING 1 POWER I HEATING 1 INCINER- 1 TRAINING I FUEL I SURFACE I AIRCRAFT 1 AIRCRAFT
I I I I I PLANTS 1 PLANTS 1 ATORS 1 FIRES I FACILITY I COATING I QUEUES I TAKEOFFS
JAN- 1-00 0 1 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+001
JAN- 1-00 0 2 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+0(
JAN- 1-00 0 3 3.119E-07 1.697E-07 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 2.318E-06 9.770E-0,
JAN- 1-00 0 4 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+001
JAN- 1-00 0 5 1.495E-05 1.616E-04 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+OP)
JAN- 1-00 0 6 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+0t
NITROGEN OXIDES (gm/m-3)
DATE IHWRIRECPI ROADWAYS I PARKING I POWER 1 HEATING I INCINER- 1 TRAINING 1 FUEL I SURFACE I AIRCRAFT I AIRCRAFT
I I I PLANTS 1 PLANTS 1 ATORS 1 FIRES I FACILITY i COATING I QUEUES I TAKEOFFS 1
1
JAN- 1-00 0 1 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+0(
JAN- 1-00 0 2 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+OL(
JAN- 1-00 0 3 1.708E-08 2.982E-09 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 1.920E-08 2.434E-081
JAN- 1-00 0 4 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+0(
JAN- 1-00 0 5 8.185E-07 2.840E-06 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+0(
JAN- 1-00 0 6 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+001
DISPERSION REP O R T
(Screening Mode)
CONCENTRATION - ALL SOURCES
INPUT I I OUTPUT
I RECEPTORS (m) I I CONCENTRATIONS (gm/m-3)
DATE IHR IW/51WD IP/GI
I m/sIDEGIA=11 NO. I X I Y I I CO I HC I NOx I SOx I PART
JAN- 1-00 0I1 350 6 1 2350 525 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
JAN- 1-00 Oil 350 6 2 1800 1600 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
JAN- 1-00 011 350 6 3 1400 4200 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
JAN- 1-00 OD 350 6 4 -600 1300 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
JAN- 1-00 OD 350 6 5 1050 650 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
JAN- 1-00 Olt 350 6 6 1800 200 1.67E-05 1.62E-07 5.75E-07 2.83E-08 0.00E+00
CONCENTRATION - BY SOURCE TYPE
CARBON MONOXIDE (gm/m-3)
DATE IHOURIRECPI ROADWAYS I PARKING I POWER I HEATING I INCINER- I TRAINING I FUEL I SURFACE I AIRCRAFT I AIRCRAFT
I I I I I PLANTS I PLANTS I ATORS I FIRES I FACILITY I COATING I QUEUES I TAKEOFFS
JAN- 1-00 0 1 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
JAN- 1.00 0 2 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
JAN- 1-00 0 3 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
JAN- 1-00 0 4 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
JAN- 1.00 0 5 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
JAN- 1-00 0 6 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 1.673E-05
NITROGEN OXIDES (gm/m^3)
DATE IHOURIRECPI ROADWAYS I PARKING I POWER 1 HEATING I INCINER- I TRAINING I FUEL I SURFACE I AIRCRAFT I AIRCRAFT
I I I I I PLANTS I PLANTS I ATORS I FIRES I FACILITY 1 COATING I QUEUES 1 TAKEOFFS
JAN- 1-00 0 1 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
JAN- 1-00 0 2 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
JAN- 1-00 0 3 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
JAN- 1-00 0 4 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
JAN- 1-00 0 5 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
JAN- 1-00 0 6 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 5.753E-07
DISPERSION REPORT
(Screening Mode)
CONCENTRATION - ALL SOURCES
INPUT I I OUTPUT
I RECEPTORS (m) I I CONCENTRATIONS (gm/m-3)
DATE IHR IW/SIl IP/GI I I
I I MSIDEGIA=1I NO. I X I Y I I CO I HC I NOx I SOx I PART
JAN- 1-00 OI1 360 6 1 2350 525 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
JAN- 1-00 011 360 6 2 1800 1600 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
JAN- 1-00 011 360 6 3 1400 4200 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
JAN- 1-00 011 360 6 4 -600 1300 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
JAN- 1-00 011 360 6 5 1050 650 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
JAN- 1-00 OIl 360 6 6 1800 200 2.46E-06 2.48E-08 6.14E-0B 3.35E-09 0.00E+00
CONCENTRATION - BY SOURCE TYPE
CARBON MONOXIDE Om/m-3)
DATE IHOUR IRECPI ROADWAYS I PARKING I POWER I HEATING I INCINER- I TRAINING I FUEL 1 SURFACE I AIRCRAFT I AIRCRAFT �.
I I I I I PLANTS I PLANTS I ATORS I FIRES I FACILITY I COATING I QUEUES I TAKEOFFS
JAN- 1-00 0 1 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+001
JAN- 1-00 0 2 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+0l
JAN- 1-00 0 3 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+01
JAN- 1-00 0 4 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+001
JAN- 1-00 0 5 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+ON
JAN- 1-00 0 6 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 2.463E-0!
NITROGEN OXIDES (gm/m-3) I
DATE IHOURIRECPI ROADWAYS I PARKING I POWER I HEATING 1 INCINER- I TRAINING 1 FUEL I SURFACE I AIRCRAFT 1 AIRCRAFT
PLANTS I PLANTS I ATORS I FIRES I FACILITY I COATING I QUEUES 1 TAKEOFFS I
JAN- 1-00 0 1 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+01
JAN- 1-00 0 2 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+01.1
JAN- 1-00 0 3 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+OOI
JAN- 1-00 0 4 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+OI
JAN- 1-00 0 5 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+01
JAN- 1-00 0 6 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 6.136E-081
DISPERSION REPORT
(Screening Mode)
CONCENTRATION - ALL SOURCES
INPUT I I OUTPUT
RECEPTORS (m) I I CONCENTRATIONS (gm/m-3)
DATE IHR IW/SIWD IP/GI I I
Im/s IDEGIA=1I NO. I X I Y I I CO I NC I NOx I SOx I PART
JAN- 1-00 0I1 10 6 1 2350 525 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
JAN- 1-00 OI1 10 6 2 1800 1600 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
JAN- 1-00 0I1 10 6 3 1400 4200 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
JAN- 1-00 Op 10 6 4 -600 1300 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
JAN- 1-00 OD 10 6 5 1050 650 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
JAN- 1-00 OI1 10 6 6 1800 200 2.62E-06 2.65E-08 6.54E-08 3.57E-09 0.00E+00
CONCENTRATION - BY SOURCE TYPE
CARBON MONOXIDE (gm/m3)
DATE IHOURIRECPI ROADWAYS I PARKING I POWER I HEATING I INCINER- I TRAINING I FUEL I SURFACE I AIRCRAFT I AIRCRAFT
PLANTS I PLANTS ( ATORS I FIRES I FACILITY I COATING I QUEUES I TAKEOFFS
JAN- 1-00 0 1 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
JAN- 1-00 0 2 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
JAN- 1-00 0 3 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
JAN- 1-00 0 4 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
JAN- 1-00 0 5 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
JAN- 1-00 0 6 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 2.623E-06
NITROGEN OXIDES (gm/m-3)
DATE IHOURIRECPI ROADWAYS I PARKING I POWER I HEATING I INCINER- I TRAINING I FUEL I SURFACE I AIRCRAFT I AIRCRAFT
PLANTS I PLANTS I ATORS I FIRES I FACILITY I COATING I QUEUES I TAKEOFFS
JAN- 1-00 0 1 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
JAN- 1-00 0 2 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
JAN- 1-00 0 3 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0-000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
JAN- 1-00 0 4 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
JAN- 1-00 0 5 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00
JAN- 1-00 0 6 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 6.536E-08
APPENDIX F
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; FARMLAND
CONVERSION IMPACT RATING; FORM AD-1006
F-1
- r ♦U.S.GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1984-451-15c
U.S. Department of Agriculture ,
'
• FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
Date Of Land Evaluation
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) 7 2.Request,
Naa Of Project Federal Agenc Inv Ived
�,^eele1 — u>e! Covw�ci �irloort Ft≥A,aAvia... on al.,P.nzt1m-flan
1 County And State
Prop sad Land Use
^i nn,' x.Pai2 c/ni toe]22 t o le. roJo
PART I I (To be completed by SCSI ^' Date Request Received B' CS . .
Does the site contain prime unique statewide or local important farmland?,.': "i. *-Yesy No Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size
:.:L4% a y� r'
(!f no;the FPPA does not apply- ',do not complete additional parts ofthis�form).�-, -.-❑ '- 'ra<8�f,/�4-' �-�"�
Major Crop(s) /1 Farmable Land In Govt Jurisdiction Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA ..,
SGKtNZ.3eerc, Loan': ' Acresi/,996349 • % 7? o Acres::4274000 • % lig 7. `
Name Of Land Evaluation•System Used - Name Of Local Site,Assessment System Date Land Evaluation Returned By SCS
L6514 44.16,.' 3: /3!$54.'�� Alternative Site Rating
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency) Site A Site B Site C Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly 236
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly 79
C. Total Acres In Site .3/5-
PART IV (To be completed by SCSI Land Evaluation Information. • .
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland - ' 3/5
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland 0
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt.Unit To Be Converted .O/4 '!.
D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt.Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher.Relative Value 30.4
PART V (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Criterion . .
.
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted(Scale of 0 to 100 Points) _. /(io .
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Maximum
Site Assessment Criteria/These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(b) Points
1. Area In Nonurban Use 15 16
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use 10- 10
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed 20 20
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government 20 10
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area 15 15
6. Distance To Urban Support Services 15 10
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average 1n n
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland 10 5
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services 5 5
10. On-Farm Investments 90 10 ,
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services 10 0
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use 10 0 ,
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Pan V) 100 96
Total Site Assessment (From Part VI above ora local 160 100
site assessment)
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2lines) 260 196
Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
Site Selected: Date Of Selection Yes 0 No j7
Reason For Selection:
1
Et4tRENSR Consulting and Engineering
Alabama Florence (205) 767-1210
Alaska Anchorage (907) 561.5700
California Los Angeles
Camarillo (805) 388-3775
Newport Beach (714) 476-0321
San Francisco (510) 865-1888
Colorado Fort Collins (303) 493-8878
Connecticut Hartford (203) 657-8910
Blinois Chicago (708) 887-1700
Massachusetts Boston (508) 635-9500
Minnesota Minneapolis (612) 924.0117
New Jersey Mahwah (201) 818-0900
Mt. Laurel (609) 234-5520
Somerset (908) 560-7323
North Carolina Raleigh (919) 571-0669
Pennsylvania Pittsburgh (412)261-2910
South Carolina Rock Hill (803) 329-9690
Texas Dallas (214) 960-6855
Houston (713) 520-9900
Washington Seattle (206) 881-7700
Puerto Rico San Juan (809) 753-9509
Hello