Attorneys weigh in on I.V. airport fence issues
From our weekly issue dated September 01, 2010
While the Josephine County Board of Commissioners moves towards approving a contract for the construction of a perimeter fence around the Illinois Valley Airport, attorneys representing airport users are expressing concerns about aspects of the project.
The county board received a letter stamped Monday, Aug. 23 from Eugene-based attorney David Atkin. He is representing the non-profit Siskiyou Smokejumper Base Museum group.
Atkin“s letter, was addressed to Rainse Anderson, director of aviation for W.H. Pacific — the firm that has contracted with the county to provide engineering and other services for the Illinois Valley and Grants Pass airports.
“I am concerned about the possible violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that could occur if the Illinois Valley Airport fence project were to proceed as originally designed,“ Atkin wrote, noting that Categorical Exclusion (CE) instead of an environmental assessment might not be sufficient to comply with NEPA. “due to the adverse impacts that would be caused by the proposed location and design of the internal fence and the other, associated changes that have been proposed, especially to this site.“
Because the airport building is recognized as a State Historic Site and listed on the National Register of Historic Sites, Atkin wrote, an environmental assessment may not be enough to achieve compliance with NEPA.
Atkin also stated that it was “imperative for the protection“ of the museum that a road not be built between the two hangars on the east side of Smokejumper Way. He suggested that a remote controlled gate be installed along the proposed fence to service those hangars.
“There should not be any gates across Smokejumper Way that would close off the road to the museum,“ Atkin wrote. “Gates or fencing there will only keep the public from easily visiting the Siskiyou Smokejumper Base Museum, and would be a waste of taxpayer money, without serving any reasonable purpose.“
A green vinyl fence, Atkin wrote, would be “more inviting to the public and would help address the endless complaints we have heard about the proposed fence design making the area around the Siskiyou Smokejumper Base Museum look like a federal prison.“
Following his recommendations would ensure NEPA compliance without the need for an environmental assessment of environmental impact statement and follow the guidelines set forth by the State Historic Preservation Office, Atkin said.
Atkin“s letter was discussed by the board of commissioners Thursday, Aug. 26 during an executive session with Rich and his staff. Executive sessions are closed to the public. Members of the press are allowed to attend, but cannot report on what is discussed.
A remote controlled electric gate proposed at the airport prompted an Aug. 5 letter from Grants Pass attorney Jim Dole to Josephine County Legal Counsel Steve Rich.
Dole wrote the letter on behalf of George Savord and Kurt Krauss, who own hangars at the I.V. Airport.
In the letter, Dole wrote that he has spoken to Savord and Krauss about the electric gate and “both oppose this.“
““I had understood that the airport manager had proposed an arrangement in which the fencing would enclose our clients“ hangars so aircraft access to the runway would not require passage through a gate,“ Dole wrote. “My clients advised that this was their understanding and they were satisfied with that.“
Savord and Krauss consider the electric gate concept an “unworkable arrangement,“ Dole wrote.
“Both of our clients maintain that a gate is not suitable in these circumstances,“ Dole wrote. “The interference this would have on the use of their hangars violates their leasehold rights.“
Dole wrote that Savord is “unaware of any precedent in other airports where multi-engine aircraft must negotiate gates while under power.“
An inadvertent collision with the gate would be “catastrophic“ for complex aircrafts, Dole wrote. He went on to state that fencing the hangars outside of the enclosed airport would be an “unacceptable security risk.“
We want to hear from you!
Add your thoughts with the link below.
Comments returning soon!
Advertisement:
