Tech regents hear concerns

The New Mexico Tech board of regents met on February 19th at Tech's Macey Center. On the agenda was public input on the proposed EMRTC drop zone west of Socorro.

Multiple factions

A number of citizens spoke in opposition to the proposed drop zone. Several citizens, primarily EMRTC employees, also gave impassioned pleas of support for the drop zone. Dr. Greg Miller gave a response on behalf of Socorro's Drop Zone Group, a group of citizens opposed to the project. Last, but not least, Dr. Van Romero of New Mexico Tech addressed the regents and weighed in, once again, in support of the proposed drop zone.

Support from EMRTC employees

As has been the case at several public meetings, EMRTC employees offered their support for the proposal. One engineer for EMRTC gave an impassioned plea with tears almost coming to her eyes, stating that EMRTC always tries to follow rules intended to protect and/or respect the citizens of Socorro. As examples, she cited rules for not exploding bombs earlier than 6 a.m., not exploding bombs after early evening, and other safety measures or noise abatement procedures employed by EMRTC. Another EMRTC employee rose to mention that her house is near "M" Mountain and she has not experienced broken windows or a cracked foundation. Both speakers indicated they believe EMRTC is an asset to the Socorro community because of the employment opportunities the organization provides.

Public opposition

While the EMRTC employees in attendance expressed their support, many others in attendance were opposed. Several citizens rose to present their reasons for objecting. Local realtor, Randell Major, of the Drop Zone Group presented a petition with signatures from many area realtors objecting to the noise impacts and the resulting losses in property values that will ensue. He also spoke passionately about how he moved to this area for the serene setting, peace and quiet, and slower more rural pace of life, all of which would be greatly impacted by low-flying C-130 air force planes. Dr. Greg Miller, local environmental expert and spokesman for the Drop Zone Group, gave a brief but pointed presentation as well. We reproduce his comments here; again we note for full disclosure that Socorro News' editor is a member of the drop zone group. Dr. Miller's comments are reproduced, below, but are also available as a pdf file here.

Dr. Greg Miller: speaking to the Tech regents

My name is Greg Miller and I am the spokesperson for the Drop Zone Group, an organizing committee for the Socorro City and County residents who are in opposition to some of the plans of the R&D Division of New Mexico Tech. I have been a resident of Socorro for over 10 years, and have earned three degrees at New Mexico Tech, where I was taught to be thorough and objective when investigating facts. I am not receiving compensation for my work for the Drop Zone Group.

Miller: purpose of my presentation

We are here to ask the Regents to closely examine activities by New Mexico Tech that we believe are in conflict with the Mission and Vision Statements of the University. Publically available information provides the necessary facts for everyone’s consideration. We are providing documentation and information to you today that use only the words of the Air Force and EMRTC to support our position.

Miller: air-to-ground gunnery is a major change in mission

While this project is referred to as the “Drop Zone” that isn’t the complete issue. A major concern, and one of many that we hope the Regents will examine, is that New Mexico Tech is proposing to establish an air-to-ground gunnery range for fee-paying clients. New Mexico Tech is inviting military and non-military aircraft to use civilian airspace west of M-Mountain in a manner that is usually confined to military installations such as White Sands. Establishing an aircraft training location with air-to-ground gunnery is a major change for New Mexico Tech.

Miller: EMRTC communication has been poor

The community is unable to evaluate what impact the University proposals will have on us because of a lack of effective communication. There are many examples, but only one is necessary to illustrate the scope of the problem. Despite repeated requests, the public cannot even determine where the impacts are going to be. The public has repeatedly requested that a map be published defining the flight paths that will be taken to and from the drop zone. For over six months no map has been forthcoming. We don’t feel that meets the New Mexico Tech mission to be a communicative neighbor. We would like the Regents to act to correct that specific problem in a timely manner.

Miller: the 58th SOW does not need a new drop zone

There is a misconception that the Drop Zone is needed by the 58th SOW out of Kirtland Air Force base because they don’t have a facility to conduct their training. The 2007 EMRTC Final Environmental Assessment states that: “Currently, the 58th SOW utilizes drop zones at the Roswell Airport, Isleta Drop Zone, and Centerfire Drop Zone. These locations pose problems both with location and logistics.” The first part of that statement is true, the second part about problems, well, not so much. Why do I say that? The Air Force is critically aware of their training needs. The Air Force recognized over three years ago that the Roswell and Isleta drop zones did not meet their training mission and set about to establish the Centerfire Drop Zone to replace Roswell and Isleta. That is what the Air Force states in the Centerfire Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact. The Air Force states that Centerfire Drop Zone will meet their needs. That document states that: “The proposal addressed in this EA is a long term solution that will meet training requirements and funding restrictions.”

Miller: conflicting messages cloud the truth

The Drop Zone Group has been in communication with the Air Force for several months and has made numerous inquiries for facts. At no time has the Air Force indicated to us that their Drop Zone training needs are not being met at the Centerfire facility. Moving existing 58th SOW training operations from Centerfire to Socorro will increase costs and travel time for the Air Force, not decrease them. The public is faced with conflicting messages, the 2007 EMRTC document that says that Air Force training needs are not being met, and the 2005 Air Force document and 2008 letter that say that they are. Given the value that the New Mexico Tech Mission and Vision Statements place on truthfulness and transparency we are asking the Regents to conduct their own investigation to determine if the EMRTC documents and public statements conform to those values.

Miller: drop zone and Special Use Airspace “clients” are cumulative impacts

At this time the Drop Zone Group believes the Air Force documents that state they are meeting their training needs. Once you get past the somewhat misleading idea that it is the Air Force that needs this drop zone, and the content about a drop zone is discarded from the document, what information is the University communicating to the community? The remaining information is that the University, through EMRTC, intends on establishing a Special Use Airspace over state lands. We do not feel that it is proper, or transparent, or in line with the Mission and Vision Statements to separate the current invitation to the 58th SOW to relocate from the future invitation to “…other clients…” Clients that can and will “…conduct air operations including air-to-ground gunnery, drops, and other training operations” in the planned Special Use Airspace. The community is not going to be able to differentiate drop zone impacts from Special Use Airspace impacts. The result of both proposals will be the same to the community; increased and regular use of the airspace close to the City by military and non-military aircraft. We ask the Regents to evaluate whether the currently unquantifiable impact, and how it is being presented to the public, is indeed consistent with the high standards that the NMT Mission and Vision Statements aspire to.

Miller: keep NMT true to the values set forth in the Mission and Vision Statements

In the 1980’s a Quality Revolution was spreading throughout American business and industry. Our national adoption of a culture of quality is one of the primary reasons that America is as productive and competitive as we are today. Mission and vision statements are part of that culture. Mission Statements are crafted with great care. They are tools used to meet institutional goals. Institutions use the mission statement, once created, as a “North Arrow” for evaluation of every institutional proposal. We are asking the Regents to carefully check their “North Arrow” with respect to the R&D Division Drop Zone and Special Use Airspace plans. From our outside perspective, we see misalignment between the R&D Division’s actions and New Mexico Tech’s mission. The proposed actions present substantial risks to the community. There is difficulty in obtaining full information about those risks. Transparency and service to the community are important parts of the mission of New Mexico Tech. We ask that the Regents review the EMRTC proposals in light of these community concerns. We thank you for the time and opportunity to address the Regents on this topic and welcome any questions you may have.

Dr. Van Romero reiterates his support for drop zone

After hearing the public's comments, the regents asked for a response from Dr. Van Romero, Vice President for Research and Economic Development at New Mexico Tech. Dr. Romero, as he has done at several other public forums, commented that he took a test flight on a C-130 air force plane flying from Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque to the drop zone, on January 18th. According to Romero, the citizens of Socorro would not have been able to see or hear the plane. He claimed to have had some ground-based personnel recording the sound impacts in and around Socorro, and stated that there were none. Romero failed to mention if any ground-based observers had been posted at the drop zone site itself or in the surrounding vicinity along the flight path.

Romero: one study found that bighorn sheep not affected by planes

Romero also repeated his conviction that the planes would not harm the surrounding environment or wildlife. As support for this belief, he made reference to a study in which bighorn sheep were found to have no significant adverse impacts from aircraft overflight. Romero provided no data showing that bighorn sheep are a species of interest in the proposed drop zone nor indicating whether other animals can be expected to react similarly to bighorn sheep. Romero also did not provide any details on the study, such as what type of planes were used when testing the sheep, the distance of the planes to the ground when they flew over the animals, or how bighorn sheep might react to air to ground gunnery.

Romero: only small arms fire, no rockets or bombs; but document contradicts this

Dr. Romero repeated his statement that New Mexico Tech will not gain financially from the proposed drop zone. Romero also repeated his example of the Albuquerque airport's proximity to I-25 and how he believes it has not resulted in any additional traffic accidents. Finally, Dr. Romero claimed that the proposed Special Use Airspace would only involve "small arms fire." However, this statement directly contradicts the Environmental Assessment (EA) document (see section 5.1.2.2, page 29), which uses the phrase "air to ground gunnery" when discussing the Special Use Airspace. The EA document, further, says that the activities at the proposed drop zone and Special Use Airspace would "have the potential to project debris into the air, up to thousands of feet above the ground." Romero's statements aside, many in the audience clearly trusted the written document over Dr. Romero's verbal assurances. However, as usual, Dr. Romero's demeanor was pleasant and charming, and this seemed to appeal to the board of regents who are more than likely all on good terms with Romero.

Conclusion

Given the contradictions and ambiguities present in the information provided by New Mexico Tech and EMRTC, Socorro News continues to oppose the establishment of the drop zone. The costs in terms of property value losses and potential litigation, not to mention the alienation of Socorro area residents, including Magdalena and Alamo, are too high for New Mexico Tech. In addition, the Kokopelli Ranch continues to threaten litigation. In summary, there are too many risks and too few rewards for this project. We continue to believe that it should be halted.

For further reading

For an even deeper understanding of the issues surrounding the proposed drop zone, we encourage our readers to look at our other articles on this topic, in the Local Politics section of our site. The petition against the drop zone, which has already had over 170 Socorro area residents sign, is now available online as well, for those that wish to sign it.