Here's some of the latest....
A nice piece on CBS news:
http://cbs13.com/video/?id=26098@kovr.dayport.com
If you want to see what is actually happening over your homes, go here:
Here's an example:
The EXPANSION OF MATHER will an impact on the 24 schools to be built in the Mather approach corridor. A large and growing body of scientific evidence has established that jet aircraft noise has a significant negative impact on learning. A study published in 2006 found aircraft noise much more harmful to children than road traffic noise, thus re-enforcing earlier doubts about school noise criteria. Clearly, classrooms at these schools must be sound-proofed, but at what cost, and will those measures be sufficient to eliminate the impact on children since not all activities take place in the classroom?
NOW IS THE TIME TO CONTACT YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES TO MAKE SURE THEY RESPOND TO THE SACRAMENTO COUNTY NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT EIR FOR MATHER AIRPORT MASTER PLAN
THE COUNTY HAS BEEN SENT THE ATTACHED LETTER DATED OCTOBER 5, 2007. THEY HAVE 30 DAYS AFTER RECEIPT TO RESPOND.
EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU NEED TO CONTACT THEM TO ASK FOR A COPY OF THEIR RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF PREPARATION!!!!!!! BELOW ARE THEIR EMAIL ADDRESSES.
DON'T WAIT FOR SOMEONE ELSE TO DO IT. IT IS TIME FOR THEM TO RESPOND.
IF YOU LIVE IN A DIFFRENT SCHOOL DISTRICT YOU NEED TO CONTACT THEM.
Teresa Stanley, Board President
Term Expires: 12/2008
To reach Mrs. Stanley
By Mail:
174 Orange Blossom Circle
Folsom CA 95630
By Phone:
916.985.3802
By Voice Mail:
916.985.3802
By E-Mail:
tstanley@fcusd.org
Richard Shaw, Board Vice President
Term Expires: 12/2010
To reach Mr. Shaw
By Mail:
230 Briggs Ranch Drive
Folsom CA 95630
By Phone:
916.351.9325
By Voice Mail:
916.351.9325
By E-Mail:
rshaw@fcusd.org
Mary McCormick, Board Clerk
Term Expires: 12/2008
To reach Mrs. McCormick
By Mail:
100 South Creek Circle
Folsom CA 95630
By Phone:
916.987.0834
By Voice Mail:
916.987.0834
By E-Mail:
mary.1mac@comcast.net
Edward Short, Board Member
Term Expires: 12/2010
To reach Mr. Short
By Mail:
125 E. Bidwell Street
Folsom CA 95630
By Phone:
916.362.9618
By Voice Mail:
916.362.9618
By E-Mail:
eshort@fcusd.org
Roger L. Benton, Board Member
Term Expires: 12/2010
To reach Mr. Benton
By Mail:
2364 Cobble Oak Ct
Rancho Cordova CA 95670
By Phone:
916.798.9953 (cell)
By Voice Mail:
916.798.9953
By E-Mail:
roger.benton@gmail.com
Some interesting emails:
From: "Barry" <xxx@xxxx>
Date: October 20, 2007 3:28:17 PM PDT
To: "David" <xxx@xxxx>
Subject: Re: FW: Mather Scoping Meeting
David (et al),
I have to admit I am becoming sympathetic to the anti-Mather expansion group. I see no reason why operations need to be expanded at night when it is very clear that day time operations are not even close to maximized.
I have an extensive career background in air operations and planning, and I suspect I might be able to assist in any organized effort to confront the county planners. I am hereby volunteering my assistance for such an effort.
Barry
From: David
To: email addresses removed
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: FW: Mather Scoping Meeting
Hi Everyone,
After being woken up by 4 planes this morning before 7:00 a.m. I’ve decided to get involved in the effort to oppose expansion of operations at Mather as proposed in the Mather Master Plan. I’ve been hesitate to get involved because the Sac County Dept. of Environmental Review (DERA) is a client of mine. However, after reading the master plan I am very concerned and my need for sleep must take precidence. My profession is environmental consulting and I specialize in environmental noise. So I am very familiar with the CEQA/NEPA process and how noise impacts from a project such as this need to be analyzed.
This morning is the first time I have looked at what is being proposed. If the current operations are bothering you in any way, you should be very concerned about the proposed expansion of operations. The master plan proposes to increase annual aircraft operations from the current level of 83,567 to 118,899, 42% increase. It proposes to lengthen the existing runway which means larger, noisier aircraft.
The current stage of the environmental review process is called “scoping.” This is a first and critical opportunity to let the county know about your opposition to expansion of operations. It is important that many letters get sent so that County staff understands the magnitude of the opposition and the issues that need to be addressed in the environmental document. Comments provided during the scoping process will help the county focus on the issues that are of concern to the community.
A few key issues that I see:
1. The draft environmental documents needs to address the return of major cargo operation to Sac International as an alternative. These operations were there prior to 1995. Development is expanding and growing around Mather (south Folsom, El Dorado Hills, Sunrise-Douglas area) and conflicts between development and noise will only get worse. Sac International is much better suited for these operations.
2. The noise analysis must address single event noise levels and the effect of operations on sleep disturbance using single event noise metrics. The cumulative 24-hour average noise metrics (Ldn and CNEL) traditionally used for this type of analysis are inadequate. Recent case law related to expansion at Oakland Airport require this. The noise analysis must evaluate the number of people likely to be awoken based on single event noise levels for each alterative evaluated. If Sac International is included as an alternative I sure the comparison of the number of people effected will be striking.
3. I've seen claims that expansion of the operations will not be greater than what was there when the facility was a military base so we shouldn't be concerned. Don't buy this. Military operations were rarely at night. Cargo operations are predominantly at night.
Please send a letter to Joyce Horizumi at the County. Information is on the flyer. If anyone knows about any existing organized opposition to the proposed expansion, please let me know who I can contact.
Dave
Future Expansion of Mather Airport Cargo Operations
My earlier item, “A Runway 22R Extension is Unnecessary and Wasteful,” established that the existing runway configuration at Mather is more than adequate to handle the 2021 high-range forecast for Mather. The “Sacramento County General Plan Noise Element” reveals the purpose of creating a second jet cargo runway by extending runway 22R to 7,200 feet (with another 300 feet of overrun when the planned runway 4L blast pad is considered). On page 60 of the Element, approved by the County Supervisors in June 1998, the true purpose becomes clear when it is stated that the “baseline scenario” for Mather assumes that “Air cargo operations are similar in magnitude to existing demands at Metropolitan Oakland International Airport.” Oakland is California’s second largest cargo airport with 80 to 90 cargo arrivals daily. Oakland handles 700,000 metric tons of cargo annually – more than twice the high-range forecast given in the Mather Airport Master Plan. And, that’s just the “baseline”; it could be more.
The Noise Element policy is re-enforced by statements by County officials, such as: “Our vision for Mather is it will be THE air cargo facility, a hub not just for this part of California, but for the entire Pacific Rim,” Paul Hahn, Sacramento County Economic Development Director, The Sacramento Bee, page D 4, 2/14/97; and “Conveniently located between the Pacific Rim and Europe the County operates Mather . . . with a goal of making it into a premier cargo hub . . . The goal includes the continued expansion of cargo operations. . .” Cheryl Marcell, Director of Marketing and Public Relations, SCAS, 8/24/05. (Figure 1 illustrates the basis of this goal.)
The California Supreme Court in Laurel Heights 1 concluded: “We hold that an EIR must include an analysis of the environmental effects of future expansions or actions if:
(1) it is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the initial project; and (2) the future expansion will be significant in that it will likely change the scope or nature of the initial project or its environmental effects.” It is clearly the intent of Sacramento County to expand Mather operations far beyond the 324,000 tons given in the Master Plan high-range forecast and the runway 22R extension makes that possible. And, more than doubling the stated amount of cargo is almost certain to increase environmental impacts. Moreover, air carriers have unfettered access to Mather, 24/7, due to the 1990 Airport Noise and C apacity Act and the lack of a means to limit cargo operations. Therefore, it seems only reasonable to conclude that the environmental studies must consider cargo operations similar to, or greater than, those conducted at Metropolitan Oakland.
From Bill Bryant:
See my comments in red. Another reason not to extend the runway and add CAT III ILS. More SCAS lack of support for Sacramento County residents. You would think they work for the FAA and not the citizens of Sacramento County. Wonder what his pay check says?
Bill Bryant
From: Rickelton. Glen
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 1:47 PM
To: Acree. Hardy; MacGlashan. Roberta
Cc: Wolter. Ted
Subject: RE: ORCA55
Dear Supervisor MacGlashan:
Radar flight track data (see attached graphic) confirms that the flight in question (ORCA55) was operated in the traffic pattern at MHR for approximate 2 hours, both an hour longer than the 1 hour time limit specified in the MOU and for an hour later than the 7:00 PM time limit also specified in the MOU. I have provided the radar flight track information to Travis AFB Standards Evaluation staff and requested that they look into the circumstances of this event, including duration, timing, and flight tracks, and provide an explanation. I will of course forward any explanations once received.
No update to either the Travis or Beale MOU has yet been completed, so the terms of the prior MOU (attached) are still applicable, though there are some specific items which are no longer applicable OTHER THAN THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR FOLSOM, FAIR OAKS, ORANGEVALE, AND THE EL DORADO COUNTY RESIDENTS (For example: Mather’s Runway 22L pavement has been rehabilitated in the last couple of years and is no longer a valid basis for restricting aircraft to two touch and go landings.) We will continue working with the various command staff at both Travis and Beale in order to update these agreements to remove dated information, add appropriate new information (inclusion of C-17 aircraft for instance), and to provide clarity on issues which are frequently misinterpreted. However, given the operational needs of the military, it is unrealistic to expect that any update will result in any more restrictive operating conditions for military flight operations at Mather.
As you are undoubtedly already aware, FAA grant assurances require us to provide access to the military for practically any aircraft in any number at any and all times of day. With that in mind, that these MOU’s, though completely voluntary on the part of the military, exist at all is a tribute to the willingness of the commands of both facilities to work with us to be good neighbors in the community while still being able to fully carry out their critical mission.
I will follow up this message as soon as I have additional information on this event. Thank you.
Sincerely,
J. Glen Rickelton
Airport Planner
Sacramento County Airport System
(916) 874-0482
(916) 874-0764 (Fax)
Some useful links/documents:
http://www.sailnow.com/ardenbluffs/rancho_scoping_meeting.jpg (Rancho Scoping meeting notice)
http://www.sailnow.com/ardenbluffs/scoping_comment_form.jpg (Public Comment form)
http://www.sailnow.com/ardenbluffs/impact.pdf (Comments about the impact of the airport)
http://www.sailnow.com/ardenbluffs/sample_lit.pdf (The impact of noise on learning)
http://www.sailnow.com/ardenbluffs/notice.jpg (Notice to our representatives)
http://www.sailnow.com/ardenbluffs/world_of_cargo.jpg (Where the cargo goes from/to Mather)
No comments:
Post a Comment