HomeMy WebLinkAbout950111.tiffPETER SMITH & SUSAN YOUNG LAW OFFICES P. G„- i D C C)
TV I
Peter M. Smith
Admitted In Colorado,
Alaska & California
Susan Y. Young
Attorneys at Law
333 West Hampden Avenue, Suite 1000
Englewood, Colorado 80110
(303) 761-1230
December 21, 1994
Greeley -Weld County Airport Board
P.O. Box 727
Greeley, Colorado 80632
Re: Airport Expansion adding Runway 34/16
Our Client: Easton Valley View Airport
Gentlemen:
t! DEC 27 Ali9: 37
CLERK
`I 0 THE EC °.R:
This office repres,ts Chuck Easton and his son Bob as well
as the Easton Valley View Airport with regard to their genuine
concerns related to your proposed addition of a new 10,000 foot
north -south runway equipped for instrument approaches. This
office specializes in aviation law. I am also an experienced
pilot with airline transport and commercial pilot ratings having
6500 flying hours in helicopters, single and twin engine
airplanes and small business jets. We are very familiar with
the Greeley facilities as well as those in the surrounding
community, having operated in this area for over 20 years.
Apparently your environmental assessment (EA) related to the
proposed expansion was done in haste and without consideration of
the true impact on the surrounding communities. That assessment
totally missed the fact that the Easton Valley View Airport lies
5 miles south southeast of the proposed expansion. That airport
is FAA approved and published on the aeronautical charts and in
the airport directories. In fact, the outer marker for the new
instrument approach would be planted squarely on or very near the
west end of the east -west runway from which small agricultural
and other fixed wing and helicopter traffic operate. Traffic in
the intermediate segment of the instrument approach will be
directly over and conflicting with the Easton Valley View
traffic. Additionally, because this new runway is being created
for the purposes of luring heavy jet traffic, the issue of a
hazard created by wake turbulence arises. That type of traffic
on final approach or on departure passing over the western end of
the Easton Valley View Airport will likely leave a wake
turbulence signature which is an invisible but significant and
deadly hazard to the small aircraft coming out of Easton Valley
View, particularly those that are heavy, clean and slow on take-
off transporting agricultural materials to the worksite.
95O111
ed.. CIr1 Jjunnet?
Greeley -Weld County Airport
December 21, 1994
Page two
The hazard doesn't end there. There is a mid-air collision
hazard with aircraft climbing out from Easton and landing on the
new runway or vice versa, creating danger to the Greeley
residents who are passengers in or operating the aircraft into
the Greeley airport, as well as the Easton employees in their
respective aircraft. Also, the mid air hazard is even greater
considering the fact that air traffic doing an approach to the
new runway must do procedure turns or be vectored well south of
the outer marker (at Easton Valley View) for alignment when
landing north, which flight path will directly interfere with DIA
traffic flow landing or departing from its north -south runways.
Easton Valley View will be under the DIA Class B airspace. That
is not safe. It is an air traffic control nightmare. Has that
been considered?
Other issues with this EA come to the fore, leading us to
believe that the need for a full environmental impact statement
(EIS) is necessary. The pelicans, migratory waterfowl and eagles
near and around the Latham Reservoir will create a significant
hazard to aircraft on approach or takeoff. As you know eagles
are a "threatened or endangered species." The impact on them is
one of the criteria that must be examined. These large fowl can
create significant accident hazards, which risks apparently have
not been evaluated in this study. Additionally, the EA claims to
have done computer generated noise level evaluations. However,
since the Easton Valley View Airport, was not considered,
apparently it was not discovered that Easton Valley View is also
a PUD zoned residential area as a fly -in fly -out community. The
noise signature from jet traffic on final approach will be a
significant problem and even a hazard to the potential residents.
Reorienting the new runway further west to a heading between 300
and 350 degrees would alleviate many of these concerns.
If an EIS is not performed, as we believe is required for a
project with this type of impact, the concerned citizens
including our clients may find it necessary to join together and
seek an injunction to prevent further disbursement of funds and
development. Thus, the full EIS should be undertaken in order to
avert certain delay to occur from this action.
Finally, as taxpayers we also oppose the expenditure
proposed here. Considering the economics of a much smaller
extension of the east -west runway, which incidentally is into the
predominantly prevailing wind, will achieve a better result,
luring the same larger jet traffic as you claim the new proposed
runway will, with probably only a small percentage of the
95011±
Greeley -Weld County Airport
December 21, 1994
Page three
economic outlay. The new runway proposal is not cost efficient
in an era where government outlays are being scrutinized for
reasonableness in the face of a ballooning budget deficit. We
have a woefully inadequate and underfunded air traffic control
system which could use the funds much more productively, rather
than purloining the taxpayers pockets for more tax dollars.
Needless to say, the proposed new runway expansion is
opposed. Please reconsider your position.
Sincerely,
PETER SMITH & SUSAN YOUNG
LAW OFFICES, P.C.
titer M. Smith
PMS:bbs
cc: Chuck & Bob Easton
Scott Frederickson, FAA
Bill Webster, Board of County Commissioners
of Weld County
Greeley Tribune Editor -in -Chief
350111
Hello