Air Force Training Proposal Piques Local Government Interest
by Watch Staff
Nov 04, 2010 | 2011 views | 4 4 comments | 14 14 recommendations | email to a friend | print
Low Altitude Tactical Navigation Area Would Overfly Montrose, San Miguel and Ouray Counties

TRI-COUNTY REGION – The US Air Force has extended the period for public input regarding its intent to prepare an Environmental Assessment for a proposed Low Altitude Tactical Navigation training area over northern New Mexico and southern Colorado. Deadline for comment is Nov. 15.

The LATN project would be based at Cannon Air Force Base in New Mexico. It proposes mostly after-dusk training flights on C-130 and CV-22 Osprey aircrafts in “high mountainous terrain” in all weather, training which, according to the Air Force is “required for successful operations in ongoing global conflicts.”

All of Montrose, San Miguel and Ouray counties are contained within the boundaries of the LATN proposal.

The Air Force maintains that the new LATN is necessary because the existing military training routes controlled by the 27th Special Operations Wing at Cannon AFB are “generally narrow corridors over flat terrain designed for use by F-16 aircraft previously flown from Cannon AFB.” Those routes “do not provide the access to aircrew training opportunities over high mountainous terrain needed to represent current real world taskings.”

Board of Ouray County Commissioners Discusses Need for Comment

The Board of Ouray County Commissioners, at its Monday meeting, discussed the need for official comment on the proposed LATN. Commission Chair Lynn Padgett encouraged fellow commissioners Heidi Albritton and Keith Meinert to consider drafting a letter to the Air Force regarding the training overflights.

Padgett referenced a letter written by the Ridgway-Ouray Community Council asking for clarification on a number of questions. Should Ouray County join San Miguel and San Juan counties, Padgett asked, in sending a formal letter as part of the scoping process?

The questions she particularly wanted addressed included a spate of unknowns: Are the aircraft going to be carrying weapons? What is the county’s responsibility should one go down? What about wildfire? Avalanches? What mitigation, if any, is being considered regarding impacts on wildlife? What about the noise?

According to ROCC’s Vice President Randy Parker, that group, while acknowledging the need for training, also had questions about flights over wilderness areas and proposed wilderness areas, such as the San Juan Mountains Wilderness.

Parker told The Watch his group was also concerned about bald eagle migration in November and elk calving in the spring. What about communication with, and advanced notification for, local search-and-rescue aircraft? The military planes are not supposed to overfly congested areas, Parker said. But how, exactly, do they define “congested?”

“Should we ask the Air Force,” Padgett queried the board, “to scope certain information into their EA?”

The BOCC took no action at its Monday meeting.

Padgett said there was information about the proposal on her website:

‘Alternative 1’ Would Move Airspace Boundaries

A second, somewhat smaller area referred to as “Alternative 1,” is also being considered. It would move the northern boundary of the airspace slightly south, closer to Grand Junction, and the western border to the east, to exclude the western one-third or so of San Miguel and Montrose counties, while continuing to incorporate all of Ouray County.

“This would reduce the area being affected by random low level flights. However, the disadvantages include reduction in the available training area which increases the likelihood that crews would fly the same route multiple times and that inclement weather would preclude training opportunities,” an Air Force fact sheet explained.

Training would consist of approximately three flights per 24-hour period, or approximately 688 flights annually, at altitudes ranging between 200 and 3,000 feet above ground level and airspeeds at or below 250 knots. The majority of flights would take place after dusk, with 95 percent of flights taking place Monday through Friday.

Federal Aviation Administration and Air Force regulations require aircraft utilizing the LATN area to avoid airfields, towns, noise-sensitive areas and wilderness areas by prescribed distances, and aircrews are prohibited from flying over the same point more than once per day for all other areas within the LATN.

But, as the Telluride Town Council observed in a comment letter sent to the Cannon AFB Public Affairs Office last week, signed by Mayor Stu Fraser, “The Town also has concerns for the safety of our regional residents and visitors where LATN operations – should they result in an unfortunate accident – might place our regional residents and visitors at risk.”

Although worded slightly stronger than the draft letter initially prepared for council review, the final version did not voice outright opposition to the LATN at this early stage in the review process, as at least one Telluride councilmember would have preferred.

“It will have a deleterious effect on tourism, psyches and real estate values,” said Thom Carnevale, later adding, “I would want to emphasize again that I think we should come out in opposition to this program; not just for ourselves, but for the ranchers, the wildlife…”

While refraining from taking such a position immediately, the majority of council appeared to be in favor of officially opposing the LATN at a future point should it appear poised to become reality.

San Miguel County Commissioners voiced similar concerns in a late-September letter to the public affairs office, stating that “the possibly severe adverse impacts that…[the activities]…could have on the county’s several thousand residents, as well as tens of thousands of annual visitors that are attracted to the county’s various recreational amenities located on both public and private lands, including a major ski resort and congressional designated wilderness area.”

– Reporting for this story by Peter Shelton and Karen James

Mail comments to: Cannon AFB Public Affairs Office, 110 E Sextant Ave, Suite 1150, Cannon AFB. NM 88103 or email HYPERLINK "" by November 15. For more information, visit
Comments-icon Post a Comment
November 10, 2010
As much as I don't like saying this, I also don't believe this is such an onerous proposition PROVIDED it is necessary AND as a country we are committed to continue to engage in a war in A-stan.

Personally, I don't believe we should be fighting there; however, if we're going to undertake such a military conflict, then we need to do everything possible to win as soon as possible to put an end to the conflict. Again, I personally don't see the end game in this; however, we're there and need to move forward with the best possible effort or pull out altogether.

I also believe that by "allowing" the military to utilize "our airspace" it might provide a real world connection to a conflict which has been sanitized & spoon fed to many Americans into more palatable & digestable sound bites. Maybe if enough people feel the violation which war inflicts on people, more people would speak out against war in the first place or at least call for a quicker resolution to those existing conflicts. Maybe if there's a violation of the tranquility we have gotten so used to enjoying while living in the region, then maybe people will more closely consider how that tranquility got there in the first place & what might be required (or NOT) to maintain the peace.

I've been in support of a draft for both the war in Iraq in A-stan for the very same reasons; it brings the wars "home" and forces people to consider whether they are actually necessary. Just consider the air space over which we reside as having been "drafted". Now, if you're so inclined, speak up against the war and maybe those who've served 3,4,5,6 tours can come home and your home territory might once again be relatively peaceful.

I just don't see how we can have it both ways for ever and ever without something giving.

Now the airport construction & proposal of night flights? That's all just absolutely & utterly OBNOXIOUS in my opinion (not that I believe war is not). I took a hike recently up the Whipple Mountain / Iron Mt. trail last weekend & thought about what it would be like to live next to that airport over the past couple of years. 66 million taxpayer dollars for our tiny town. Oh, I forgot, there are those who have their hand in many cookie jars & there are big plans at stake for a FEW.

November 08, 2010
The military necessity for these fly overs no longer exists.

We are now killing our foes from a base in Orlando Florida using unmanned aircraft and kids working joysticks from an air force base halfway around the world.

I am all for being able to defend and offend anyone with bad intentions; I just don't think we need the F16 to do this. Look at Pakistan-very mountainous country and we are blasting the Taliban to martyrdom daily with our Obama sanctioned war within a war-from an air force base in Florida.

This reminds me of the disturbance that a lift to Silverton would do...hard to quantify but still there.
November 08, 2010
There is a reason I did not buy a home a t Stapleton, then DIa,and would not, if I could afford, an Aldasaro -noise pollution ! It is very peaceful and quiet here . The airport board and neighbors cant agree on a new curfew-and now we'll have three ear splitting sound barrier breaking events of excitement everyday?

Are there no mountains between here and Colorado Springs ? There are lots of bases and military personal in CS let them enjoy the noise pollution-and do their flyovers on the Eastern slope. If there are any problems there are more people for emergency response . Or keep it over the GJ -I70 corridor they wont notice the noise.
November 04, 2010
This proposal doesn't strike me as being very onerous. Is there a way to set up a trial period (maybe one year) to see how it goes and review it later? I think when people experience the limited fly-overs, they won't find it that intrusive.