Overview

New Mexico Tech Vice President of Research and Economic Development, Dr. Van Romero, recently released a response to a series of questions posed by the local citizen group, The Drop Zone Group. In his response, he released a map indicating, at long last, the proposed flight paths for the planes going to and from the proposed drop zone. While much of the information in Romero's response was not new, several important new data points have been forthcoming, including: 1) in fact, Kirtland Air Force Base's 58th Special Operations Wing (SOW) has not entered into a cooperative agreement with EMRTC for the proposed drop zone, contrary to what has been previously implied, 2) there are virtually no economic benefits to the city of Socorro (one half-time EMRTC employee is expected to be hired if the drop zone goes through and it is expected that only a few people will "pass through" Socorro from time to time en route to the drop zone), and 3) there are no other federal agencies actively interested in the drop zone. It appears NM Tech has engaged in a "if you build it, they will come" approach with respect to the proposed drop zone. Finally, Romero hits back - and hits back hard - with some pretty strong accusations against the Drop Zone Group; however, our analysis of his remarks about the group finds them dubious, at best. We will provide a link to Romero's full remarks, later in the article.

Flight paths finally published

Romero's remarks included, for the first time, a detailed map of the flight paths that the C-130 planes would take, if in fact Kirtland wanted to use the drop zone (more on that issue in the next section of this article). The flight path map is available online as a large pdf file (note: you will need acrobat reader, if you don't already have it installed on your computer). Interestingly, the white flight paths depicted on the map actually do not intersect the proposed drop zone, but instead fly just east of it; we assume this was merely a minor error in how the lines were drawn. The two flight paths show one which comes down south, on the west side of town, in a semi-direct path from the north to the proposed drop zone site. The second flight path on the map shows planes coming south on the east side of Socorro, then flying south past town and crossing back to the west to the drop zone.

Air Force not formally involved in proposal

A major admission was made by Romero in his remarks; namely, that the U.S. Air Force was not actually formally involved in the plans for the proposed drop zone, nor is EMRTC in a "cooperative agreement" with the U.S. Air Force . This contradicts previous assertions made in public by EMRTC, New Mexico Tech's administration, and the formal Environmental Assessment published by NM Tech. In fact, Romero's remarks indicate that the U.S. Air Force has not entered any agreement with New Mexico Tech or EMRTC. Instead, Romero paints them as one of many potential clients of the proposed drop zone. The attitude of New Mexico Tech appears to have been one of "if we build it, they will come" instead of an actual agreement with the 58th Special Operations Wing (SOW) out of Kirtland Air Force Base; this stands in stark contrast to what many in the public had been led to believe through previous communications with NM Tech. We consider this a major breaking news item and believe more explanation for the misleading information, that was distributed repeatedly over the past several months, is in order.

Romero comes out swinging against citizen group; some say punches below belt

Note: as we have pointed out repeatedly, Socorro News' editor is a member of the Drop Zone Group, a group of local citizens opposed to the proposed EMRTC drop zone.

Dr. Romero's remarks attempted to address many questions raised by the Drop Zone Group. At the end of his remarks he posed some questions of his own to the Drop Zone Group. His tone appeared quite combative, and we can only guess that the drop zone issue and the stress surrounding it may have played a part in Romero's apparent frustration with the group. Romero posed three questions to the group, which we paraphrase here. Romero's questions included more than a few verbal jabs and accusations, which we will omit here because they are not relevant to the discussion; interested readers can explore his remarks in their entirety at the end of this article.

• Romero questions Drop Zone Group's concerns about noise impacts on education

Dr. Romero comments that the Drop Zone Group has referenced a 2007 study in which student test scores were adversely affected by aircraft noise. He asks the Drop Zone Group why it posed questions about noise and the potential effect on student test scores despite his claim that, "the noise level impact at area schools has been measured; and the data is not a prediction or an estimate. The data confirms that there is no increase in noise levels at area schools." Further, Romero asks why the study in question was cited even though the same study mentions that it "should not be used nationally" for making policy decisions. These two points, at first glance, appear fair. However, upon closer inspection, Romero's questions pretty much answer themselves.

First, the Drop Zone Group had no formal flight paths at the time the questions were raised. Until his current remarks were made available, just now, the flight paths were not available to the public. So, questions about noise impacts were certainly reasonable in light of the ambiguity in flight patterns. Second, Romero's statements to the contrary, to this day there have not been any sound measurements taken at the schools with C-130 aircraft flying on the proposed flight path, at least as far as any data or report that has been made available to the public. Romero seems to have confused noise measurements, taken in April and June of 2007, which measured the pre-existing noise in and around Socorro without C-130 aircraft, and a few ground-based observers listening by ear during his January C-130 test flight, with actual sound measurements at area schools. It is possible such measurements were taken - i.e. measurements at the school indoors while C-130's were on the flight path - however such data has not been made available to the public and all information provided thus far indicates that such measurements have in fact not been taken. Consequently, Romero's claim that the data is there and that it is not a prediction or an estimate is either factually wrong, or he is relying on private information that New Mexico Tech has thus far refused to share with the public and the Drop Zone Group.

Regarding Romero's comment about the document stating that the results should not be used nationally, this is a red herring. The report does say that its results should not be used nationally, i.e. not be used as the sole basis or source for national policy decisions. The report does not, however, imply that it should not be used in assessing the potential effects of noise on educational environments. The Drop Zone Group made no claim that the report should be used in formulating national policy; it merely noted that noise does affect student test scores.

• Romero questions Drop Zone Group's data on property value losses

Dr. Romero asks the Drop Zone Group why it claims that property values will be adversely impacted in the Socorro area, as suggested by the GRA report which suggests about 1% per decibel for estimation, despite the report mentioning (according to Romero) that "there is a cut-off point around 50-55 db where noise levels do not impact property values." And, according to Romero, "even if the noise level [sic] predicted by the Drop Zone Group are used (7 - 17 db), these are noise levels well below the specified cut-off."

This question by Dr. Romero is slightly ambiguous, and there are two possible interpretations of what he meant. Unfortunately, either interpretation indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of the data on the part of Dr. Romero. Let us explain. His question can be interpreted in one of two ways: either he is suggesting that the Drop Zone Group has predicted a cumulative noise level of 7 to 17 db, which falls well below the 50-55 db level at which the report notes that property devaluation occurs, or he is arguing that a 7 to 17 db increase would not push any of the affected areas above the 50-55 db level at which such property devaluation occurs.

The first interpretation makes no sense in that Socorro's pre-existing background noise has been measured in the 48-58 db range (in town) and 38-48 db range (out of town) as mentioned in EMRTC's own Environmental Assessment (EA) document that was funded by New Mexico Tech. Consequently, we can rule out that Dr. Romero was implying that the Drop Zone Group was suggesting a total noise level of 7 to 17 db, given that existing background noise is already well above those levels.

Thus, we are left with the second interpretation: that Dr. Romero is suggesting that a 7 to 17 db increase in noise would not place any properties above the 50-55 db cut-off at which property value losses ensue. This intepretation, unfortunately, makes no sense either. If we take the background noise levels stated in EMRTC's environmental assessment, we have 48-58 db in town and 38-48 db out of town as pre-existing background noise levels during the daytime. Taking any of those figures and adding 7 to 17 db of noise, does in fact push them past the 50-55 db cut-off at which property value losses ensue. For example, in town, adding 7 to 17 db to Socorro's existing background noise would yield total noise levels of 55-75 db, well above the 50-55 db cut-off mentioned in the GRA report. In Socorro's rural areas, outside of town, 7 to 17 db increases would yield a range of 45-65 db, a large chunk of which would be above the 50-55 db cut-off. Frankly, we have no idea what Romero was thinking on this one; our best guess is that he was simply confused.

• Romero questions Drop Zone Group's grammar and spelling

Well, what can we say on this. This makes it look like Romero is grasping at straws. Or maybe it was an early April Fool's joke. The Drop Zone Group, no doubt, has had some correspondence that was less than perfect; the group is comprised of regular folks with varying backgrounds who have day jobs and often write such correspondence in a hurry between other responsibilities. Members of the drop zone group do not have a paid staff that proofreads for them. Now, this question (actually more of an accusation or an attempt at playing "gotcha" by Dr. Romero) is silly on its face. However, it's even sillier in light of the fact that Dr. Romero's own correspondence is riddled with grammatical mistakes of his own, despite the fact that he has paid staff available to proofread for him, unlike members of the Drop Zone Group.

We won't bore our readers with too many examples, but here are a few examples of Romero's own grammatical mistakes: using plural pronouns when singular pronouns are called for, misusing the word "affect" when "effect" is required, using the plural verb "are" when "is" was proper, sentences that are not properly formed (such as "If it noise levels, the measured noise levels in Socorro were below background"), and many, many other mistakes. None of this seems relevant to the merits of the drop zone, frankly, and we believe Dr. Romero would be better served by focusing on more important matters. However, if he is going to make such silly arguments, he and his paid staff should at least proofread his own documents first, so as to avoid being hoisted by his own petard. As they say, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Full text to Romero's remarks

If you've read this far, you may be one who likes "the full story" and we encourage you to examine Dr. Romero's full remarks (warning, large file), available here as a pdf file.