Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - City Council - 07/08/2013 ar" southburlinotori VE MQNT SPECIAL AGENDA Chamberlin School 262 White Street SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT Special Session 6:00P.M. Monday, July 8, 2013 1. Public Meeting: "Special meeting to establish current position of South Burlington City Council regarding proposed bed-down of F-35 at Vermont Air National Guard". Council to hear comments from the public in this order: A. South Burlington Residents B. Businesses Located in South Burlington C. Other Interested Parties 2. Consider further action on the bed-down of the F-35 at Vermont Air National Guard. Respectfully Submitted: Ke.vl,vv Dorn Kevin Dorn, Interim City Manager Meeting Procedures 1. All speakers must sign in on sign-up sheet. Sign-up sheet will be open until 7:00 PM at which time it will be closed. 2. Speakers will be called to the speaker's table in the order reflected in the agenda. 3. All speakers will be allotted 2 minutes of time to make their presentation. A light/timing system is provided to note the time available. Please respect the light signals so that when the red light comes on you have completed your presentation. 4. Please be respectful of the statements and presentations of the speakers. 5. We intend to hear all speakers who have signed in. South Burlington City Council Meeting Participation Guidelines City Council meetings are the only time we have to discuss and decide on City matters. We want to be as open and informal as possible; but Council meetings are not town meetings. In an effort to conduct orderly and efficient meetings,we kindly request your cooperation and compliance with the following guidelines. 1. Please be respectful of each other(Council members, staff, and the public). 2. Please raise your hand to be recognized by the Chair. Once recognized please state your name and address. 3. Please address the Chair and not other members of the public, staff, or presenters. 4. Please abide by any time limits that have been set. Time limits will be used to insure everyone is heard and there is sufficient time for the Council to conduct all the business on the agenda. 5. The Chair will make a reasonable effort to allow everyone to speak once before speakers address the Council a second time. 6. The Chair may ask that discussion be limited to the Councilors once the public input has been heard. 7. Please do not interrupt when others are speaking. 8. Please do not repeat the points made by others, except to briefly say whether you agree or disagree with others views. 9. Please use the outside hallway for side conversations. It is difficult to hear speaker remarks when there are other conversations occurring. \./1 ssuth ., ak o . VERMONT July 9, 2013 Mr.Nicholas Germanos HQ ACC/A7PS 129 Andrews St. Suite 332 Langley AFB,VA 23665-2769 RE: Official Position of the City Council of South Burlington,Vermont Regarding the Initial Bed-Down of the F-35 at Burlington,Vermont. Dear Mr. Germanos: Please be advised that on Monday, July 8,2013 the City Council of South Burlington, Vermont voted to support the proposed initial bed-down of the F-35 in our community. The language of the motion as passed is as follows and its expression of the City Council position is self-evident; That the City Council of South Burlington support the bed-down of the F-35 at the Burlington, Vermont Air Guard Station and notify the Air Force of this support. The City Council of South Burlington, Vermont respectfully requests that the Air Force consider our position in support of the bed-down as you reach your decision on this important matter. Sincerely, Pam Mackenzie Chair South Burlington City Council • 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4107 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburi.com p south VERMONT July 9, 2013 Mr. Nicholas Germanos HQ ACC/A7PS 129 Andrews St. Suite 332 Langley AFB, VA 23665-2769 RE: Official Position of the City Council of South Burlington, Vermont Regarding the Initial Bed-Down of the F-35 at Burlington, Vermont. Dear Mr. Germanos: Please be advised that on Monday,July 8, 2013 the City Council of South Burlington, Vermont voted to support the proposed initial bed-down of the F-35 in our community. The language of the motion as passed is as follows and its expression of the City Council position is self-evident; That the City Council of South Burlington support the bed-down of the F-35 at the Burlington, Vermont Air Guard Station and notify the Air Force of this support. The City Council of South Burlington, Vermont respectfully requests that the Air Force consider our position in support of the bed-down as you reach your decision on this important matter. Sincerely, Pam Mackenzie Chair South Burlington City Council 575 Dorset Street South Burlington, VT 05403 tel 802.846.4107 fax 802.846.4101 www.sburl.com ?it"LE- 4-4„ cet_41,14.,ed ff,(0 cik-, F35 Y>71-tf (724- 44:4 Aj/L' /-00670 IA- Z_ S-6-"14o�12 CN/ i C4t1 0)04 TN; Isy 147- 2,4 :3 - i Arodui PP P 1(1 ablic Sign- In SOUTH BURLINGTON RESIDENTS July 9, 2013 Special City Council Meeting Please Print Name Name Name 1 Pati 1.-me,./ 18 '/ 35 7,9 G--01 A, .t.;4‹ 2 Q/b dg.M / 190�t/17//e sq / idea i( c� 3 L( 00.1ii,Ivirri C S 20 76 Y X/9 / �—` 37 J(✓J J-e?/` 4( 4 p,„A. L bb+.1 21 S -V38 )-1 ` Solr 5 )1 ri iect- 22 CIO-S .Q,Qt I V 39 --i3c3f3 iv4 5H-l< 6 VCYP / 23Ra'A 1 4 eC 2 7 Wp Q,N Rco e \/ 24 11'4l /14/ V 41 /4 ,g/I 8 t_tA4As LeaVev‘5 2 6- 42 /' 140Ake t i 'j 9 -71, 26ir_ci (V,11) z 43 A-c r 10 (4 (2r ()0M2 w)-0 27 )9A-J _ c a /�e�� 44 .�,.. 11 LieeN & u V, ER '" 28 4 � ,� � -c,v,.i' / 12 Adg gd u V I ✓ ' /' `>' �� f%� �tY46` i�r� -��� Gd~v't. ,, 13 t1,1C 2 in \ cff -.- 47 Jurc7., 14 /0//" _ llldl(0 31 ''/ 48 ado 11--V 1 15 W lAbt/ 02 ))4/ b 49 K O JIc.�K ,✓ 16 .(itLe,he:K, -n4Z-10/414 33 lin f: 1 50 Oco,e Gtil 34 A. It 111, s sw. w s t I t' stew.. ' t 4 if t Public Sign- In SOUTH BURLINGTON RESIDENTS July 9, 2013 Special City Council Meeting Please Print Name Name Name 86 (, vt1)r'1c,/,, t o 6,44,-;\;/, 53 ,? ry 4.2 70 a Le-Yr/ 17 #thaty 544 54 j ? - f 71 l ` az/. 88 ,p,.1� tOC--)2- 5 - 2 ao,_)k.). �,L 2 \I�� 89 AA 'Fa tzb 1-1,qi 56 v 90 57 g, ik4 3-azvo ri ` / 91 do © Jj6 dv 7 92 59 7F, / .i/ 76`' 93 60 Thal Z-7611- V/77 _�` 94 V 78 62 L-i Z MeviA4.701 79 96 63 80 -> .�� ��r�i 97 64 ' ,aNe tfeyl. • 81 , 'r , , ' � 98 65 5I-e).e Tr-0 I 82 , 7, 7 66 Q J- A 83 4 1e Lead - 67� 84 aeffc.� .eSic.Vr'r .rs- `7101 6 85ak kii/(t1.5 102 R Y 1`` 6E 1 >''J*' '✓"' -31. Public Sign- In BUSINESSES IN SOUTH BURLINGTON July 9, 2013 Special City Council Meeting Please Print Name Name Name 1 M./eit f'?f)Y‘ 18 35 2WIL6.4), 19 36 3 20 37 4 21 38 5 22 39 6 23 40 7 24 41 8 25 42 9 26 43 10 27 44 11 28 45 12 29 46 13 30 47 14 31 48 15 32 49 16 33 50 17 34 51 , ,,,, ,ei . , Public Sign- In OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES July 9, 2013 Special City Council Meeting Please Print Name Name Name 1 1 (hT� 18 35 2 19 36 3 v1/\ei clMi- 20 37 i �� 4 l►'1 -- k\( 21 38 5 At.", .,_-. ,-_ , " 22 39 6CA Le tc1"C 23 40 r� 7 (e s 5Y\ v>/ 4 41 8 . a / 7 ] 7i' 25 42 9 26 43 10 27 44 11 F)Or\ 0--1_5t U,v�r-:4(3 28 45 12 29 46 13 30 47 14 31 48 15 32 49 16 33 50 17 34 51 ; 4'4; _ Page 6 • June 27, 2013 • www.otherpapervt.com • The Other Paper Regular Exercise F-35 will benefit Vermont Communities It should be no surprise to hear that ercise is the -, cornerstoi of a healthy Ninety Five percent of Burlington International Airport traffic has lifestyle rith the help nothing to do with the Vermont Air National Guard (VTANG); the of a bakanced diet, exer- [7T flying of the F16 represents 5%of the Airport activity and the Vermont cise can help you achieve personal fitness goals, Air Guard works very carefully to work with the surrounding commu- whether you want to >I. nities to mitigate noise issues. This has been the VTANG way of doing lose those extra pounds business for the past 67 years. That's how long they have been flying before swimsuit season over the skies of Chittenden County. With the basing of the F35, or get the six-pack abs Vermonters can expect that the Guard will do everything possible ible to ` But, t always wanted. But, the list of positive work with the communities and continue a proud tradition of serving benefits doesn't stop with Vermonters and the Nation. physical fitness. Regular exercise can also provide AN1 A small group of opponents of the F35 are using fear tactics with psychological benefits. alleged impacts to scare Vermonters. They want you to believe that your home is at risk because of the F35s. There is no evidence to These are good reasons to stop reading this article support this position and to the contrary, area residents should be and head outdoors or to the gym.If t1 optimistic about their home values. I was born in Burlington and have not motivation enough,then consid( been in Real Estate in the Burlington area for 40 rears. I join other real regular exercise has been linked to I estate professionals who are responsible for the majority of the real salaries.According to a study publis the Journal of Labor Research,emp. estate transactions in the region who have studied the market area and who exercise regularly(at least three have come to some very positive conclusions. each week) earn nine percent mo average,than employees who dop.'t. The basing of the F35 will not add any significant negative impact to real estate values and we find tat there is no reliable market data to ,.� Previous studies tried to confirm till suggest otherwise.Moreover, 4 ` ' tionship between exerc' e and incoir pgton,yVetocskin Williston there continues to be consider e`market activity for invest- proved o a merely atregu.rash exercise related to a higher salary.Vasilios Kos1 ment and growth within the areas surrounding the Burlington Cleveland State University used`pro! Airport. All with the knowledge that the F35 may be coming to ty-score matching'to compare empl Vermont. with similar work ethics and backgrc (health history, education, experi Those living in South Burlington see minimal vacant inventory for sale or rent. You are being told that the houses that were bought near r ,; the airport and their subsequent treatment are somehow the fault of the VTANG. The Airport's buy-back program (currently in effect in portions of South Burlington) is a completely separate process from 5 , rt:,-e, _`. this basing decision and is run by the FAA, not the military. The program is voluntary and is subject to federal funds being available, come her spiritual' ground. as well as the property being located within the Airport's Noise Midway p through our walk,lP' Compatibility Program (which must be approved by the Burlington bent down,reached aft City Council in coordination with the South Burlington City Council). it ou'd :� o xn. ttit�sift throb=' It is important to note that there needs to be a plan and a vision for his fingers, like a ° how the area directly surrounding the airport will be redeveloped, sieve.He glanced at the cairns off in the This has to best reflect the good of the neighborhoods, the commu- distance,pointed to ; nity, and the region. A proactive approach is long overdue and must them,and said,"It's be a top priority. This should result in added value to area housing like another human -: and remedy an existing problem that has been neglected for too long. being held those There is currently litigation,brought by a local resident, re ardin g the hands out,aasrocks." He held if craha- g s a- houses that were bought near the airport which has halted any process dling an infant. for demolition. Dozens of cairns grace the hillside South Burlington residents enjoy one of the finest school systems in a collection of relics in a museum. Vermont and a vibrant business and residential area to live in_ low, red stone, granite, concrete, not motif ation enou 1 then c$ nsidei. i optimistic about their home values. I`was born in Burlington and have g= u. regular exercise has been liked to high€ been in Real Estate in the Burlington area for 40 years. I join other real salaries.According to a study published i estate professionals who are responsible for the majority of the real the Journal of Labor Research, emplovet estate transactions in the region who have studied the market area and who exercise regularly(at least three hou have come to some very positive conclusions. each week) earn nine percent more,o average,than employees who don't.' The basing of the F35 will not add any significant negative impact to Previous studies tried to confirm the rel: real estate values and we find that there is no reliable mar.,' data to tionship between exercise and income,ht suggest of •rwise. Moreover, in South Burlington,Wine .ki, and proved merely that regular exercise was co Williston th e continues to be considerable market 'ty for invest- related to a higher salary.Vasilios Kosteas ment and gro within the areas surrounding the .rlington Cleveland State University used`propens Airport. All wi .e knowledge that the F35 m• se coming to ty-score matching'to compare employe+ with similar work ethics and backgrounc Vermont. (health history, education, experienc Those living in South 1. lington see mini. : vacant inventory for sale or rent.You are bei , old that the • ses that were bought near the airport and their subs- ent treat,'.-nt are somehow the fault of ROC the VTANG. The Airport's : bac.• •rogram (currently in effect in CONTINU portionsBurlington •mpletely separate process from of South this basing decision and is run . the FAA, not the military. The come her spiritual program is voluntary and is s +j- to federal funds being available, ground." Midway as well as the property bein d ocate• ithin the Airport's Noise through our walk,JP Compatibility Program ( ich must I ..proved by the Burlington bent down,reached City Council in coordi ion with the S. Burlington City Council). into the sandy soil, let it sift through '� �, It is important to no that there needs to be ,n and a vision for his fingers, like a sieve.He glanced at 3 , how the area direc , surrounding the airport w 1 be redeveloped. the cairns off in the This has to best rr ect the good of the neighborhoods, the commu- distance,pointed to nity, and the re. on. A proactive approach is long overdue and must them,and said, 'Its " be a top prio This should result in added value to area housing like another human being held those and remed in existing problem that has been neglected for too long. rocks." He held his ' There is rently liti_ation,brought by a local resident, regarding the hands out,as if cra- which has halted . s ess dung an infant. ''` • - • . Dozens of cairns grace the hillside, li South Burlington residents enjoy one of the finest school systems in a collection of relics in a museum.Y low, red stone, granite, concrete, a: Vermont and a vibrant business and residential area to live in. even remnants of farm equipment,like Residents have positively coexisted with the Airport and the Air rusted piece of a plow, and sundried ci Guard for decades and that isn't going to change with the F35. bones make up each of JPs creations.IN one cairn, or rock, is like another.Sot Winooski is under the flight path of the Airport and is currently in are topped with rocks that look like h. the 65 DNL area. Winooski is seeing tremendous housing investment or mushroom caps. Others have shell with full knowledgeof thepotential basingof the F35. Luxurysupportinge mini pyramid of blemish+ rough-edged, and perfectly round roc apartment investments have been over 15 million dollars and St. One looks like a little girl perched oI Michaels College is investing 30 million in a new student housing rock wall.We stopped at the very first complex. Development and sales of condominiums at Winooski Falls of cairns JP constructed, a grouping at least eight. His daughter, Claire, u area indicates a strong appetite for investment and growth within the them the Rascals,because,as Wendy sz currently affected DNL line.Winooski is Vermont's rising star and fear "She sees them moving at night." JP I mongering for political advantage can only create negative self-fulfill- no idea how many there are, how mk- ing prophecy if left unchecked. rocks make up each cairn, or how Ion has taken him to build each one. "If) I had the opportunity to personally observe and listen to the F 35 count, you end up making mistakes," flying together with an F 16. I can tellyou that theplanes are so similar said, swiping the sweet summer air�, y g g his earth painted hand. Do we spend in their sound that it's difficult to tell the difference. I can personally much time counting? attest that we should not expect to see any different experience with the F 35 operating from our Vermont Air Guard base than we are JP continued through the tall grass, couraging me to join him, to view ei currently experiencing from the current F 16 operations. individual rock up close. "This one fi like skin," he said, massaging the rod The economic benefits for Vermonters with the basing of the F35 are if it were alive. "See, this one has a sc tremendous. Housing markets will continue to thrive. The downside He studied every divot, pockmark, is minimal.If the discussion is somehow taken off-track by unsubstan- unique pattern. "This one looks like „__s....d C....... ..,,,.:A,-,,",+....,,:7 I.ra,-,,.,,,,,a...re.se: I..,t,r,tP NAT111 CIIITPr from another planet,".he said,cuppin SOUTH BURLINGTON SCHOOL DISTRICT 500 DORSET STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT 05403 phone: 802-652.7250 OFFICE: FREDERICK H. TUTTLE MIDDLE SCHOOL Fax 802-652.7257 E-mail:sbsd@sbschools,net May 14, 2012 HQ ACC/A7PS 129 Andrews Street, Suite 337 Langley AFB, VA 23665 Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Air Force's Draft F- 35A Operational Basing Environmental Impact Statement ("Draft EIS"). I am providing comments on behalf of the School Board for the South Burlington School District. The South Burlington School District consists of three elementary schools, a middle school, and a high school. The District employs 510 teachers and staff and serves 2402 students. Our comments focus on concerns regarding the completeness of the Draft EIS's consideration of the noise impacts on the South Burlington School District of basing 18 or 26 F-35As at the Burlington Air Guard Station. We do not take a position at this time on whether the bed down of the F35-As at the Burlington Air Guard Station would be in the best interest of the District or community. The following addresses the Draft EIS's consideration of direct noise impacts on the District's schools, the indirect or cumulative impacts on the community from an increased noise level, and mitigation measures. I. Consideration of Noise Impacts on the District's Schools Of greatest interest to the School Board are the direct noise impacts on the District's schools, teachers, staff, and students and their families. The Draft EIS is deficient in a number of respects in its evaluation of these impacts. First, although the analysis does address the impact of classroom speech interference from noise, the consideration of impacts on Chamberlin Elementary School and other South Burlington schools is too narrow and cursory. The Draft EIS evaluates "two . . . classroom criteria . . . to determine if aircraft noise may inhibit classroom learning." Draft EIS at BR4-22. It states that one`appropriate criterion is a limit on indoor background equivalent noise levels of 35 to 40 dB" and another such criterion is "a limit on single events of 50dB L,,,„,." Id It appears, however, that the Draft EIS includes no data for the first criterion: there is no data regarding actual and expected background equivalent noise for the school. The analysis seems to be limited to the number of single events of 50 dB L„„ . Without an understanding of what the background equivalent noise level is and may be, the analysis does not fully or adequately consider whether classroom learning will be inhibited. Further, the analysis 1 explains that, under scenario one(18 F-35As), Chamberlin would be subjected to 5 events of 50 dBL111 ,,with windows closed and 25 events with windows open, and, under scenario 2 (24 F-35As), it would be subjected to 6 events of 50 dBL,,,„ with windows closed and 26 events with windows open. It is not clear from the Draft EIS whether it is setting forth the average events per hour or per day. In any event,the Draft EIS does not provide an appropriately detailed examination of the actual impacts this noise interruption would have on classroom learning and student health, relying instead on generalizations related to noise impacts on learning and cognition and health effects on the affected population. Draft EIS at C-20 to C-23, C-30 to C-32. A more detailed analysis specific to this situation is necessary. Second, the Draft EIS does not address the impacts of the noise on Chamberlin students who are outdoors. At Chamberlin, students are outdoors during recess or lunch for at least 45 minutes per day. During this time, the students may be subjected to far higher noise levels than they encounter in classrooms with the windows closed. Nor does the Draft EIS analyze potential impacts from the noise on other District schools, particularly to Rick Marcotte Central Elementary School. In order to provide a complete analysis for the decision as to whether to locate F-35As at the South Burlington Air Guard Station. the Draft EIS should evaluate these impacts. Third, the Draft EIS should compare the noise impacts of the F-35As with the noise impacts of commercial and civilian aircraft without the contribution of the F-16s. In examining the noise impact, including on Chamberlin, the analysis compares the expected noise level of the proposed bed down to a baseline that includes the current noise impact of the 18 F-16s flown by the Vermont Air National Guard. The decibel Day-Night Average Sound Level (db DNL) is 70 under the baseline scenario, 67 under the 18-F-35A scenario,and 68 under the 26 F-35A scenario. This suggests that, at least with respect to Chamberlin, the bed down of the F-35As would improve the noise impact. But we must ask whether this provides a fully accurate and realistic comparison. It is our understanding that the F-16s at the Burlington Air Guard Station will be phased out if the F-35As are bed down at a location other than Burlington. Thus, in addition to the comparison to the baseline, it would be appropriate to compare the noise level excluding the F-16s from the equation. What would the noise level be with the F-35As relative to the projected civil and commercial contribution, excluding the contribution of the F-16s, which will be phased out? This would provide the public and decision makers with information that is more relevant for determining whether to locate the F-35As at the Burlington Air Guard Station versus one of the other proposed locations. II. Indirect and Cumulative Impacts on the School District The analysis also insufficiently considers indirect and cumulative, yet foreseeable, impacts to the School District from noise. To understand the insufficiency of its consideration of such impacts,a closer examination of the noise contour maps on which the Air Force relies is necessary. 2 As we understand it,there are two noise contour comparisons analyzed in the Draft EIS. One analysis compares baseline and F-35A scenario noise contours derived from the Air Force's use of the NOISEMAP software program. Figures 3.2-2, 3.2-3, 3.10-1, 3.10-2. A second analysis compares the Part 150 Noise Study contours, which are used for the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") Part 150-Noise Compatibility program,with the F-35A scenario noise contours. Figure 3.10-3. Under the FAA's Part 150 program, the FAA is funding the acquisition of residential properties in South Burlington within the 65 DNL contour of the Part 150 contour map. The Part 150 contour map is derived from the Integrated Noise Model used by the FAA,not the NOISEMAP software used by the Air Force. The potential impacts on South Burlington are significantly different depending on which comparison one views. In the first analysis, a comparison of the baseline against the two F-35A scenarios suggests that the residential noise impact on South Burlington would actually decrease under either scenario one(18 F-35AS)or two(26 F- 35As),even though the overall noise impact to the surrounding residential community would increase. It appears from the contour maps that the noise patterns under the F-35A scenarios are narrower than the baseline contours and encompass less of the residential area in South Burlington. The overall increase in the residential area impacted by noise is due to the extension of the 65 dB contour to the northwest of the airport, increasing the impacted residential area in Winooski. The comparison of the noise contours of the F-35A scenarios to the Part 150 noise contour map paints a very different picture. Under this comparison,the 65 dB contour for either F-35A scenario covers substantially more area both in South Burlington and Winooski. See Draft EIS at BR4-62, Table BR3.10-3, Figure 3.10-3. Should the noise contour used in the FAA's Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program become coextensive with the F-35A scenario noise contours set forth in the Draft EIS, a significant increase in the households in South Burlington as well as Winooski would be subject to that program and could be slated for purchase and destruction. The Draft EIS analysis of the impact of this foreseeable result is insufficient. It mentions but provides no analysis of the cumulative impacts of the bed down combined with the FAA Part 150 Noise Compatibility Program. Draft EIS at BR4-88. It is foreseeable that the expanded 65 dB zone that would result from the bed down of F-35As at the Burlington Air Guard Station would lead to a decrease in the number of households and associated population in South Burlington.a resultant decrease in the tax base that funds the District's schools, and a decrease in enrollment in the District's schools. The Air Force should fully explain these impacts to inform the decision as to the location of the F-35As. III. Mitigation Measures The Draft EIS also provides an inadequate discussion of the mitigation measures that could be used to decrease the impacts on the South Burlington School District. In particular, in discussing impacts on land uses,the Draft EIS suggests that land use for educational services in noise zones of 65-69 or 70-74 dB is"generally compatible with 3 Noise Level Reduction. However, measures to achieve an overall noise level reduction do not necessarily solve noise difficulties and additional evaluation is warranted." C-17— C-18. The level of uncertainty demonstrated in this statement calls for caution in proceeding with an activity that will cause"difficulties"to the land use, in this case education, that may not be mitigated with noise level reduction. There must be a more robust evaluation and discussion of potential measures to mitigate the effects of noise on learning and cognitive abilities. Further, the Draft EIS briefly mentions measures designed to mitigate noise impacts in South Burlington. It states that the Air Force would"[c]ontinue to work with Burlington IAP and City of South Burlington to support purchase and relocation through the Part 150 process and to assess noise abatement measures." Draft EIS at 2-45. The continuation of purchase and relocation of families through the Part 150 process would, however,exacerbate adverse impacts to the School District. It is this very process that will foreseeably lead to the contraction of the District's tax base and to decreasing enrollment in District schools. Instead, the Air Force should further evaluate how various noise abatement measures could be used to reduce the area that may be impacted by unacceptable noise levels. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Air Force's Draft EIS and we look forward to having our concerns and questions addressed. The School Board and the District's Administration are available to provide additional information to the Air Force for its continuing consideration of the impacts of its proposed action. Sincerely, 7 Martin LaLonde For the South Burlington School Board 4 Good evening. My name is Carl Carlson, I live on Logwood Street, within sight of the entrance driveway to the airport. I am a retired FAA Air Traffic Control Specialist, and a former US Navy pilot. I have logged around 2500 hours in a variety of both jet and conventionally powered military aircraft. I am here tonight to talk about the mis-information and scare tactics being used in the arguments against the basing of the F-35 fighter at the airport. First, lets talk about noise. Much of what we hear is based on observations from Eglin AFB in Florida. What is missed, is that Eglin is a experimental facility.Aircraft depart and arrive anytime 24/7. Engines are run, both in an aircraft and on test stands, for extended periods and at various power settings. Under these conditions, it is no wander that there is a noise problem. We hear the argument that our area would become unlivable with the F-35. The F-16's depart for training flights twice a day, sometimes also in the evening. The roar of their departure lasts for about 6 to 10 minutes and that's it. I have a DVR on my TV set, and as the jets are departing, I merely push the pause button, and then the play button after they have departed. From what I have read, there would be NO difference when the F-35 aircraft arrives. As far as pet sensitivity, I have two cats. If they happen to be sleeping when the jets depart, I have seen them open their eyes, look around, yawn, and then go right back to sleep. The affect on them is totally nil. I feel there is more noise and disruption from the heliocopters landing a departing from the ramp, or the older radial engined private planes departing runway 1-19. We also have read of young students at this school acting scared an panicky as the jets depart. Psychologically these children are reacting to the adults around them. Have these teachers ever thought to take a field trip over to the Air Guard to talk to the pilots and look at the aircraft up close. I would bet such a visit would go a long way to cancel out any fear of the unknown. Second, we have heard a lot lately about crash zones.A question, when was the last time there was a fatal military crash at this airport? Since I moved here in 1987, I believe there has been one fatal crash, and that was a civilian twin that landed short of the approach end of runway 15 some years ago. About a month or so ago, we read about cracks in the F-35 engine that grounded the aircraft for a period of time. What was not mentioned, was that these cracks were infintesimal in length, and were found using X-ray procedures. The inspection procedures used to find these cracks are common to new engines until they have been used for ii` `t' iiod of time. I would recommend anyone interested in the very tight tolerances required for the manufacture of these engines should talk to the folks in Rutland, who make them. Finally, we hear about how the F-35 is going to affect the value of our homes. I just do not buy this argument. My house is convenient to walk to the airport, no expensive parking needed, and also walk to buses on Williston Road. Two houses on my block have recently been placed on the market. It will be very interesting to see how long it takes to sell them, and for what price. I strongly urge the basing of the F-35 here, and I also urge the Council to reverse their decision in this matter. Thank you BILL CIMONETTI 1393 SPEAR STREET SOUTH BURLINGTON, VT June 17, 2013 I'm Bill Cimonetti, a rather long-time resident of South Burlington. I'm appearing tonight to raise a concern, and perhaps a question. A bit over a year ago, on May 21 , 2012, I believe, the City Council agenda had an item: "5. Council Discussion Regarding Possible Position on the F-35 Draft EIS Report and Proposed Beddown Program:" The minutes of the meeting show that this was discussed, and that the Council subsequently voted, 4 to 1 , "that the City Council take a position in opposition to the basing of F35s in South Burlington...". presume that this meeting was well warned, but I must admit that it caught me and many other residents by surprise. Since that meeting of the City Council local, national, and even international media have made note that the City of South Burlington opposes the proposal of the US Air Force. It seems that in every public discussion of the Burlington International Airport this attribution of an official position of the City of South Burlington arises. Burlington International Airport is wholly located in South Burlington, and its activities affect our residents in many ways; the selection of a site for future bed down of the F-35 is just one of those ways. However, the repeated statements of the May, 2012 council vote seem to inadvertently suggest that our city has an official position of opposition to almost every facet of operation of the airport. This is an unfortunate unintended consequence of the May, 2012, council vote. There has been and will continue to be much public discussion of the pending US Air Force decision on initial bed down of the F-35. My concern tonight is with a continuing simplistic voicing that the City of South Burlington is opposed. My question is whether or not the City Council feels that last year's vote represents this year's position. My request to the Council is that you consider revisiting the issue in a public meeting. 2/4/- ./ June 23, 2013 Mr. Nicholas Germans HQ ACC/A7PS �l}j, ij 129 Andrews Street, Suite 322 Langley AFB, VA 23665-2769 Dear Mr_Germans:. We have lived at 35 Suburban Square, South Burlington, Vt. for nearly thirty years. During that time our children played nearby, attended Chamberlain School and we enjoyed our investment in our property. We believe that those"luxuries"will not be available to future generations. The Air Force's estimates project noise levels in our neighborhood will increase by four times if F-35s are based here. Our house and our children's former school stand in the area where sound levels will be detrimental to human health. (It is approximately 800 steps from the airport fence to our home and the school.)As it is, when F-16s take off, we must put down the phone, our grandchildren wake up screaming and our conversations with neighbors must cease. Our neighborhood has changed as the result of noise levels from the F-16s currently based here. Homes where friends and relatives once lived stand vacant or are awaiting the wrecking ball and developers promise the nebulous benefits of commercial growth in areas where people want their children to ride bikes and play hide and go seek. We cannot stand for this. We oppose the basing of F-35s in our neighborhood. Please add our names to your AGAINST list. Sincerely, /7/v/k- ,t3 Gordon R. Lawrence and Paulette J. Lawrence CC Senator Bernard Sanders Senator Patrick Leahy Representative Peter Welsh V South Burlington City Council Celine In ails From: Kevin Dorn Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2013 8:44 PM To: Celine Ingalls Subject: FW: F-35s Copy this email From: R Greco Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2013 9:48 PM To: Pam Mackenzie; Helen Riehle; patn1553@gmail.com; cashaw@post.harvard.edu Cc: Kevin Dorn; Tom Hubbard Subject: FW: F-35s To ALL members of the South Burlinngton city Council: By all of the conditions raised by the Air force itself, the Burlington Area is NOT the place to choose for their new base. It clearly appears to me that the eagerness of developers to support the F-35s coming here is that it opens the way to commercial development on the land where so many houses (and MANY more) have to come down. this le lopdenoise tohuge reachoss of many moreohouses whichng in South fall withinthe " Burlington, permits the incredibly- ey elementary school ! ! "unacceptablerange g - even an Listen to the facts ! We love the VT ANG, too. But think what area is you continue to pursue flalse lures. Sputh Burlington citizens u will lardeingoto our F-35s here. p g largely oppose the Please vote in opposition to them. Barbara Bull 1 Page 1 of 2 Celine Ingalls From: Kevin Dorn Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2013 8:41 PM To: Celine Ingalls Subject: FW: F-35A Decision and Desired Outcomes Celine - copy this email. From: Pam Mackenzie Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2013 7:04 PM To: Kevin Dorn Subject: Fwd: F-35A Decision and Desired Outcomes Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Kai Gmail<kaimikkelforlie@gmail.com> Date: July 7, 2013 4:58:29 PM EDT To: <pmackenzie@sburl.com>, <pnowak@sburl.com>,<cshaw@sburl.com>, <rgreco ,,sburl.com>, <hriehle@sburl.com>, <mobrien@winooskivt.org>, <stipson(a,winooskivt.org>, <jlittle@winooskivt.org>,<sleonard@winooskivt.org>, <srobinson@winooskivt.org> Cc: <info(a�saveourskiesvt.org>, <letters@burlingtonfreepress.com>, <agalloway@vtdigger.org>, <sharon.bushor(a vtmednet.org>, <kevinwbtv( gmail.com>, <ianeknodell@.burlingtontelecom.net>, <maxwell.k.tracy@gmail.com>, <vbrennan(a,burlingtonvt.gov>, <rsiegel@,burlingtonvt.gov>, <baubin@burlingtonvt.gov>, <jshannon@burlingtontelecom.net>, <chip.mason.bty@gmail.corn>, <NormBlaisVT(4gmail.com>, <paulfin@sover.net>, <tayres@burlingtonvt.gov>, <pdecellesw7@aol.com>, Governor Peter Shumlin<governorvt@state.vt.us>, <mayor@ci.burlington.vt.us>, <nicholas.geiuianos(ulangley.afmil> Subject: F-35A Decision and Desired Outcomes Reply-To: <kaimikkelforlie@gmail.com> Dear All, I'm writing as a resident of Burlington and as someone who'll be directly affected bya F-35A beddown. I live west of the departure corridor for aircraft departing Runway 33 and am regularly barraged by the sound of air traffic. By far the worst of this traffic is the Air Guard's F-16's. According to the Air Force the F-35A is more than four times louder than the F-16. This admission does not address the additional noise produced when the F-35A utilizes afterburners,reliance on which some are arguing will likely become standard operating procedure as a result of ongoing aircraft modifications. So,purely on a noise basis,the F-35A will dramatically increase the sound I hear at my home. And it's important to note that I share my immediate neighborhood with—50,000 other people so I will not be alone in this experience. Moreover,my heart goes out to those thousands of folks in particular who live in the 65dB zone and whose homes will become even more difficult to inhabit and to sell as a result of the FAA designating their properties as"not suitable for residential use". I'm also a former airline captain with thousands of hours in jet aircraft. I understand the tendency 7/8/2013 Page 2 of 2 amongst pilots and others in the aviation industry(and/or those who benefit from its continued existence)to dismiss the concerns of those people who live near airports. I once scoffed at those who called my profession into question or who sought to curtail my actions. However, dispassionate as I once may have been,I eventually came to realize the very real damage I was dispensing on the human communities over which I flew. Similarly,the more I learned about the very real damage that aviation is producing on the natural environment the less able I was to play an active role in this destruction. I ultimately quit the profession after ten years when I was no longer able to resolve my actions with my beliefs. I no longer fly as a pilot or as a passenger and I avoid airmail-instead I dedicate myself to helping my community achieve a more sustainable model. The F-35A aircraft and indeed the entire JSF(Joint Strike Fighter)Program represent the worst of our national priorities. Our country doesn't need this weapon or the massive expenditure it represents. We don't need to risk our children's health,the safety of our community or the sanctity of our environment for an airplane. What we need instead is a radical rethink of our entire society to bring our actions in line with our beliefs in order to address the realities we face,realities like peak oil("our low energy future")and climate change. I urge each of you to identify the most important priorities in your life-be they family and friends, the environment or something equally vital-and then determine where exactly this warplane fits into your list, if at all. This is not about our safety or security-it's about money,pure and simple. Certainly we can do better here in Vermont then sell our souls and further squander our environment in exchange for such an undesirable and unsustainable technology. Thank you. Kai Kai Mikkel Forlie Burlington,Vermont 7/8/2013 Page 1 of 1 Celine Ingalls From: Kevin Dorn Sent: Sunday, July 07,2013 8:43 PM To: Celine Ingalls Subject: FW:Articles concerning basing F-35 in South Burlington Attachments:Air Force Report both Provides and Obscures F-35 Noise 1.pdf;ATT00001.htm;Air Force understates F35 health risks to Children and Adults 2.pdf;ATT00002.htm; F35 will cause cognitive impairment to Children 3.pdf;ATT00003.htm; F35 will cause hearing loss and heart disease 4.pdf;ATT00004.htm Hi Celine -there are four articles as attachments here to copy. From: Pam Mackenzie Sent: Friday,July 05, 2013 10:08 AM To: Kevin Dorn Subject: Fwd: Articles concerning basing F-35 in South Burlington If you get a chance, give me a holler at 497-1340,thanks Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: James Marc Leas<jimmy�vermontpatentlawyer.com> Date: July 5, 2013 9:52:40 AM EDT To: Pam Mackenzie sb <pmackenzie�sburl.com>,Pat Nowak sb<pnowaksburl.com>, Chris Shaw sb<cshaw(cr)sburl.com>, Rosanne Greco sb<rgreco@sburl.com>, "Helen Riehle sb" <hriehle l sburl.com> Subject: Articles concerning basing F-35 in South Burlington Dear Councilors Mackenzie,Nowak, Shaw, Greco, and Riehle, The attached four articles concern the F-35 basing that will be the subject of the Council meeting and public hearing on July 8. I intend to also submit them to the Air Force as comments to the Air Force revised draft environmental impact statement. Would you please review them carefully before the Council meeting and public hearing as they include information I think you and the public will find useful during your discussion. Unfortunately,I am in London now,and my return ticket does not get me back in time to attend the public hearing. Therefore,I would respectfully request that the Chair read at least one of the articles out loud, or key excerpts, at the public hearing. Please let me know whether this will be possible. Thank you very much. best regards, James Marc Leas Law Office of James Marc Leas 37 Butler Drive, South Burlington,Vermont 05403 phone: 802 864-1575, 202 684-3496, fax: 651 691 0073, cell: 802 734-8811 skype phone:james.marc.leas http://vermontpatentlawyer.com/ May be restricted or confidential.If you are not intended recipient please delete immediately 7/8/2013 Air Force Report both Provides and Obscures F-35 Noise by James Marc Leas Opponents of basing the F-35 have largely rested their case on information provided by the Air Force in its draft Environmental Impact Statements (EIS).By contrast, supporters of the F-35, including the entire Congressional delegation,the governor,the Mayor of Burlington, and even spokespeople for the Vermont Air National Guard,have all run away from its contents. A WCAX reporter said on VPT's"Vermont This Week"on February 8,2013,"the irony is that you have opponents citing the Air Force's report and the Air Guard backing away from that report." Notwithstanding all the valuable information it contains,the revised Air Force report is deeply flawed, seriously understating the public health risks of basing the F-35 in South Burlington. Though its information seriously damages the case for basing the F-35 in South Burlington,the latest Air Force report omits or obscures even more damaging noise and health-related information. For example,while the Air Force report presents results of studies of hearing loss,vascular disorders, and cognitive impairment in children,the latest Air Force report downplays harm by omitting mention of any scientific papers about aircraft noise published during the past 10 years. Those more recent scientific papers show that the hearing loss,vascular disorders,and cognitive impairment in children described in the Air Force report actually appear at significantly lower average sound levels. Therefore, a large number of families living outside the Air Force designated noise contours will be affected from F-35 basing.And the 3410 families the Air Force now says are living within high noise contours are likely to suffer more serious health outcomes than the revised draft EIS reveals. Vermont elected leaders have sustained their support for basing the F-35 in South Burlington on information gaps in the Air Force report. Sure,for example,careful readers were able to put information from one part of the EIS together with information from another part to determine how much louder the F-35 will sound than the F-16. But Vermont political and military leaders-- and a certain self-seeking commercial real estate developer--have demonstrated tireless ability to avoid such understanding. The Air Force should further revise its report to expressly state how much louder the F-35 will sound than the F-16 to listeners on the ground in communities most affected as the warplanes take off. The obscure formulations should be eliminated,the gaps filled in, and health effects brought up to date. Sound levels are given but loudness is obscured To its credit,the revised draft EIS gives the peak sound level heard by a person on the ground below when the F-16 and the F-35 each take off from the Burlington Airport and reach 1000 feet (page BR4-21): F-16 94 dB F-35 115 dB Also, to its credit--but unfortunately in a separate section--the revised draft EIS says, "On average, a person perceives a doubling(or halving)of the sound's loudness when there is a 10- dB change in sound level."(Page 3-7). The Air Force report fails to state that the 21 dB difference means that the F-35 is more than four times louder than the F-16. The revised draft EIS obscures this fact by requiring the reader to put information from the two sections together and do some calculating. First, of course,the reader must recognize the need to put the information on page BR4-21 together with the information on page 3-7. Then the reader must recognize that if a 10dB change is perceived as a doubling of the perceived loudness, then 20dB is two doublings of the loudness and that two doublings means the sound is 4 times louder. Only then would the reader conclude that,with its peak sound level 21 dB higher than the F-16,the F-35 must be more than 4 times louder than the F-16. So far,none of Vermont's elected statewide leaders and none of its military leaders have followed such a train of reasoning. The obscure presentation allows those leaders to be in denial. Taking advantage of the obscure presentation,to divert attention from and to disparage the information in the Air Force report, a commercial developer named Ernie Pomerleau hosted a private jet flight for Governor Shumlin, Burlington Mayor Weinberger,Winooski Mayor O'Brien, and now-Adjutant General Steven Cray to visit Eglin Air Force Base on December 12, 2012. Pomerleau and other commercial developers stand to make millions of dollars for themselves from buying up the vacant land and putting up commercial buildings after Burlington demolishes the tiny affordable homes of hundreds of families near the airport entrance. Those families were displaced under a$40 million FAA buyout program after the Vermont Air National Guard chose a fuel tank configuration that required increased use of the extremely noisy afterburner on takeoff. That afterburner noise triggered the FAA buyout, literally clearing the way for the commercial developers. A report in the Burlington Free Press, "Supporters hope governor's F-35 visit will boost their cause"on December 16, 2012 said: Within minutes of watching and listening to the F-35 and the F-16 take off and fly by, Shumlin declared the F-35 quiet. Burlington Mayor Miro Weinberger said it was not appreciably louder than the F-16. `I'm shocked how quiet the F-35 is,' Shumlin said at the time. It would have had to be considerably louder to change his support,he said. At no time has Mayor Miro Weinberger or Governor Peter Shumlin ever mentioned that the Air Force report provides information showing that the F-35 is more than four times louder than the F-16. By contrast, Governor Shumlin further illustrated how obscure the Air Force report was in his remarks on Vermont Public Radio on December 13,2012. Governor Shumlin started by saying"Many of the things that are being said about the F-35 and the noise problem are simply not true."The things being said, of course,were based on information in the Air Force draft EIS, such as that the F-35 is more than four times louder than the F-16. Nor has any spokesperson for the Vermont National Guard ever described how loud the Air Force report says the two planes are.Further illustrating how obscurely the information was presented in both the original and the revised draft EIS, spokesmen for the Vermont Air National Guard are actually currently campaigning against the information presented in those Air Force reports. At a news conference conducted at Camp Johnson by the Vermont Air National Guard,not only did its spokesman fail to present and clarify the information published by the Air Force in its reports regarding the relative loudness of the two planes,the spokesman actually said the opposite. As reported in"Vermont Air Guard offers its side of the F-35 basing story,"on June 6, 2013: Speaking at an invitation-only roundtable discussion with the media at Vermont National Guard headquarters at Camp Johnson,Lt. Col. Luke"Torch"Ahmann, 158 Fighter Wing Plans and F-35 Program Integration Officer for the Air Guard, said. . . the jet will be quieter than the F-16 after it takes off. Thus,Lt. Co. Luke Ahmann did not mention, clarify, or explain the 21 dB difference the Air Force reported. The information is so obscure in the Air Force report that a spokesman for the Vermont Air National Guard could say the opposite at a news conference. In addition to failing to clearly state how much louder the F-35 is than the F-16,the revised draft EIS fails to state how high the F-35 will be when it flies over residential areas in Winooski, Burlington, and Williston.Nor does this Air Force report give the peak sound levels people will hear when the F-35 flies over their communities.Nor does it provide a comparison of sound levels with the F-16 at those heights. The Air Force reports should be revised again to state how much louder the F-35 will be compared to the F-16 as it flies over streets in Winooski,Burlington, and Williston and as it takes off in South Burlington. As written, with key information on different pages and its failure to even say how much louder the F-35 will sound than the F-16 sounds when on takeoff they reach 1000 feet above ground level,the revised draft EIS appears to intentionally obscure its finding that the F-35 is more than four times louder than the F-16. The obscuring is one piece of evidence for the conclusion that the F-35 basing process is not legitimate. With 55 homes already demolished and 100 more vacant in South Burlington and awaiting demolition because of F-16 afterburner noise,with$150 million worth of affordable homes in Winooski,Williston, Burlington, and South Burlington at risk from F-35 noise, and with commercial developers hungrily seeking to grab millions of dollars for themselves from land confiscation and redevelopment near the airport entrance,the situation stinks of corruption. The clean fresh air of facts is needed--facts not yet clearly provided in a draft EIS,as required by federal law. A further revised draft EIS is needed before any final decision is made. It should leave no work for the reader. And it should leave no chance for obfuscation and denial by politicians,Air National Guard leaders,and commercial real estate developers. Take action Readers are encouraged to email comments saying that the F-35 should not be based in Vermont and indicating your concerns about the plane and/or deficiencies in the revised draft EIS to Air Force Civilian Project Manager Nickolas Germanos before the July 15 deadline: nicholas.geimanos@langley.af.mil Analysis of strengths and shortcomings of the Air Force reports regarding health risks to children and adults from F-35 noise will be presented in forthcoming articles. James Marc Leas is a patent lawyer in South Burlington. Air Force understates F-35 health risks to Children and Adults by Richard Joseph and James Marc Leas The Air Force grossly understates health impacts to children and adults in its revised draft Environmental Impact Statement(EIS). While,to its credit,the Air Force report recognizes cognitive impairment of children,heart disease, and hearing loss among the problems caused by military aircraft noise,the number of people in Vermont who will be affected and the magnitude of the effects are shortchanged. Military jets dominate the noise from the Burlington airport To its credit,the Air Force report clearly says that noise from commercial flights at Burlington International Airport is negligible compared to the noise from military flights: With the 18 F-16 aircraft eliminated,based F-35A departures from Runways 15 and 33 would dominate the DNL exposure southeast and northwest of the station/airport,respectively.The contribution of civilian aircraft would be negligible compared to the military aircraft contribution. (Page BR4-33). The Air Force deserves public appreciation for providing this level of clarity regarding the dominant source of noise at the Burlington airport. Noise Contours and Public Health: Also to its credit,the Air Force report says that property within the 65 db DNL(day/night 24 hour average)contour is "generally not considered suitable for residential use" (page C-14). It further says that the 65 dB DNL"is a level most commonly used for noise planning purposes and represents a compromise between community impact and the need for activities like aviation which do cause noise"(page C-14).It also suggests that the 65 dB DNL line does not include an adequate margin of safety for the public.Instead the revised draft EIS recommends 55 dB DNL to provide an adequate margin of safety. The revised draft EIS specifically says that 55 dB DNL is "a level `...requisite to protect the public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety,' (USEPA 1974)which is essentially a level below which adverse impact is not expected" (page C-14). However,the revised draft EIS fails to provide the 55 dB DNL contour line for either the F-16 or the F-35. The Air Force report should be revised to add the 55 dB DNL contour so the public, Vermont political and military leaders,and the decision maker in Washington will know where the contour is outside of which there is an adequate margin of safety.And also,how large the area is for which there is no adequate margin of safety.And how many people and homes will be within the area for which there is no adequate margin of safety. Adverse Health Effects Also to its credit,the Air Force report recognizes adverse health effects of noise. The revised draft EIS states: "... DNL of 75 dB... is the lowest level at which adverse health effects could be credible (USEPA 1974)." [C-12]. The report further says that 770 people will be in noise contours above 75 dB DNL if the F-35 is based in South Burlington(page BR4-33). But the Air Force fails to state its recognition that it will be in serious violation of its own health standard for these 770 people if it decides to base the F-35 in South Burlington. Not just that. The 39 year old EPA study on which the 75 dB DNL threshold is based is out of date and must be corrected based on more recent studies. These recent studies show adverse health effects at much lower noise levels than 75 dB DNL, as described in a 2011 report by the World Health Organization(WHO), "Burden of Disease from Environmental Noise"("the 2011 WHO report"). Although the revised draft EIS mentions a WHO and NATO study published in 2000, strangely, it omits mention of the 2011 WHO report or any of the other studies published during the past decade. The Air Force report also omits mention of findings regarding adverse effects of noise on children provided in a training presentation for Health Care Providers that was published by the World Health Organization,"Children and Noise,"updated in 2009. This presentation urges consideration that children are vulnerable to"lifelong impairment of learning and education" (page 15) and says that"over 20 studies have reported that noise adversely affects children's academic performance"(Page 33). It reports the conclusion that aircraft noise adversely affects hearing and cognitive performance of children. With regard to cognitive perfoiivance,it reports impairment in reading,memory, auditory discrimination, speech perception, academic performance, and attention(page 35). It reports that the strength of evidence for all these scientific findings is at the highest of four levels. Nor does the revised draft EIS consider the point made in the"Children and Noise"presentation that: Certain subgroups of children [are]particularly at risk for harm from excess noise exposure. These include the fetus,babies and very young infants born preterm, with low birth weight or small for gestational age. Also, children who have learning disabilities or attention difficulties may be more likely to develop early problems with mild hearing loss compared to children without these challenges (page 13). The"Children and Noise"presentation provides micrographs showing the damaging effects of noise on the hair cells in the ear that are responsible for sensing sounds and transforming them into nerve impulses. Such trauma to the hair cells results in hearing loss: '& Children and noise DIRECT DAMAGE vi ORGAN DAMAGE, NOISE INDUCED HEARING LOSS Normal hair cell Noise damaged hair cell 1 1 E t r,z: ; .A, i 1 ie-- i la The Air Force report also does not mention a United States Environmental Protection Agency letter commenting on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the F35 bed down at Eglin AFB,Florida(November 2010): EPA is particularly concerned over noise impacts to children per Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. E.O. 13045 recognizes children may suffer disproportionally from environmental health risks and safety risks. Because their smaller ear canals magnify the sounds entering the ear canals,children's hearing may be particularly sensitive. For example, a 20-decibel difference can exist between adult and infant ears. The scientific consensus that has emerged in the last ten years means that serious adverse effects of aircraft noise occur at lower noise levels than the 75dB DNL reported in the revised draft EIS, particularly in children. Just as the original Air Force report was revised to include the latest census data,the latest version should be further revised to bring it up to date with current research results. Physiological effects in children: The Air Force report properly mentions studies demonstrating the association between noise exposure and physiological effects in children. For example,it says that"children who were chronically exposed to aircraft noise from a new airport near Munich, Germany,had modest(although significant)increases in blood pressure, significant increases in stress hormones, and a decline in quality of life(Evans et al. 1998)."However, it does not disclose the noise level at which those children were exposed.The most recent of the studies of the physiological effects of aircraft noise in children mentioned date from 2001,twelve years ago. Cognitive impairment of children : As more recent studies show cognitive impairment of children at levels below 65 dB DNL,the Air Force will have to consider adding a wider geographic area and letting thousands more people know that their children are at risk if the F-35 is based in South Burlington. And that those children who live within the Air Force designated noise contours are subject to a greater level of cognitive impairment. The Air Force must also present the information in a way that Vermont political and military leaders--and the Vermont commercial real estate developer who is driving support for F-35 basing--will understand. A forthcoming article will describe the recent scientific results showing cognitive impairment of children at levels below 65 dB DNL. What you can do Readers are encouraged to email comments saying that the F-35 should not be based at the airport in South Burlington,Vermont and indicating your concerns about the plane and/or deficiencies in the revised draft EIS to Air Force Civilian Project Manager Nickolas Germanos before the July 15 public comment period deadline: nicholas.germanos(a,langley.af.mil Richard Joseph lives in Winooski. James Marc Leas is a patent lawyer in South Burlington. F-35 will cause cognitive impairment to Children by Richard Joseph and James Marc Leas Children and teachers at Chamberlin School in South Burlington take heed: The revised draft Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)describes studies demonstrating the association between chronic exposure to high aircraft noise levels and cognitive impairment in children(C-28 to C29) and recognizes that chronic exposure to aircraft noise is a serious problem. To its credit,the revised draft.EIS says: Evidence exists that suggests that chronic exposure to high aircraft noise levels can impair learning. Specifically,elementary school children attending schools near New York City's two airports demonstrated lower reading scores than children living farther away from the flight paths(Green et al. 1982). Researchers have found that tasks involving central processing and language comprehension (such as reading, attention,problem solving, and memory)appear to be the most affected by noise(Evans and Lepore 1993,Hygge 1994, and Evans et al. 1998).It has been demonstrated that chronic exposure of first-and second-grade children to aircraft noise can result in reading deficits and impaired speech perception(i.e., the ability to hear common, low-frequency[vowel] sounds but not high frequencies [consonants] in speech) (Evans and Maxwell 1997). Finally, although it is recognized that there are many factors that could contribute to learning deficits in school-aged children,there is increasing awareness that chronic exposure to high aircraft noise levels may impair learning. This awareness has led the WHO [World Health Organization] and a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation(NATO)working group to conclude that daycare centers and schools should not be located near major sources of noise, such as highways, airports, and industrial sites (WHO 2000,NATO 2000). (page C-29 of the EIS). But this Air Force report seriously understates the danger by relying on studies of cognitive impairment in children published before 2002. It fails to report the sound level at which cognitive impairment may begin to be expected.Nor does it say the amount of impairment in reading ability and recall that children are expected to experience or say how impairment increases with exposure to noise.All this is available in the recent scientific papers the Air Force report omits mentioning. While the term"chronic exposure" is certainly suggestive,the Air Force report does not expressly state that the learning impairment from high aircraft noise levels is cumulative,that the adverse effects increase because of repeated exposure to high noise levels over months and years. The Air Force report fails to mention that the restriction on noise level near a school was violated when the Vermont Air National Guard started routinely using its incredibly loud afterburner for takeoff near Chamberlin Elementary School in South Burlington. The routine use of the afterburner resulted from a move of the external fuel tank from under the fuselage of the F-16 warplanes to the wings. On June 28, 2013,the Vermont Air National Guard issued a letter to one of us in which it refused to answer any questions regarding the use of the afterburner and the change in fuel tank configuration. This despite Adjutant General Steven Cray's announced commitment to being "open and transparent." Nor did the Air Force report explain how the fuel tank relocation and consequent use of the noisy afterburner fit in with being a"good neighbor"to the children at Chamberlin Elementary school-- rather than being a good neighbor to self-serving commercial real estate developers who seek to turn intensely noisy military aircraft into money for themselves. While the Air Force report provides evidence of cognitive impairment in children, it fails to report the sound level at which cognitive impairment may begin to be expected.Nor does it say the amount of impairment in reading ability and recall that children are expected to experience. As all this is available in recent scientific papers,the Air Force report should be updated with the more recent results regarding cognitive impairment in children. Five of the six studies cited in the 2011 World Health Organization(WHO)report, "Burden of Disease from Environmental Noise,"concern aircraft noise. The sixth focuses on traffic noise. The studies show substantial impairment in recall and reading in children whose homes or schools are located in areas exposed to aircraft noise less than 65 dB DNL(see FIG. 3.1 on page 48). In addition,the amount of cognitive impairment increases steadily with the noise level in all six studies. The 2011 WHO report also provides a graph estimating the percent of children affected as aircraft noise level increases. It states that in the noise range from 55 to 65 dB DNL, 20% of the children are expected to suffer cognitive impaiuuent. In the noise range from 65 to 75 dB DNL, 45 to 50%of the children are expected to suffer cognitive impairment. Above 75 dB DNL, 70 to 85% of the children are expected to suffer cognitive impairment. While the WHO report shows cognitive impairment in children at a noise level as low as 60 dB DNL, the Air Force does not provide a contour line below 65 dB DNL.Nor does the Air Force tell families whose homes are located in the noise zone between 60 and 65 dB DNL, as well as those in higher noise contours, of the substantially higher risks of cognitive impairment their children face from basing the F-35 in South Burlington. The studies regarding cognitive impairment in children cited in the WHO report were published in Psychological Science in 2002, the Lancet in 2005, and Environment and Behavior, 2003. Thus,the Air Force has long had access to these studies. The revised draft EIS also fails to say how many children live in homes in the area the Air Force deteuriined will be exposed to 65 dB DNL noise or higher by the F-35. In view of the fact that the draft EIS mentions a number of studies demonstrating the association between noise exposure and cognitive impairment in children,the omission of how many children are in the noise zone and the failure to include updated studies indicates extreme carelessness on the part of the Air Force and wanton disregard for the children of families living in Winooski,Burlington, Williston,and South Burlington. An unofficial estimate of the number of Burlington area children in the noise zone above 65 dB DNL is about 1500.Based on the results presented in the 2011 WHO report that about 50% of children in the noise zone are expected to be cognitively impaired, one can estimate that about 750 Vermont children are likely to be cognitively impaired by basing the F-35 in South Burlington. The cognitive impairment in children is not temporary. The 2011 WHO report states, "it is more likely that children who have passed through the mandatory school system in a noisy environment would live with a long-term consequence of cognitive impairment" (pages 51-52). In addition,with each year of basing the F-35 in Burlington, as babies are born to parents living in the noise zone,the number of damaged children will steadily increase. The Air Force should immediately update its report to include the results of studies on cognitive impairment in children published after 2002,the level of impairment,the percent of children affected by cognitive impairment,and the number of children who will be cognitively impaired by the F-35 basing each year and during its 35 year basing in Vermont. A discussion of the cumulative nature of the damage should also be included. Otherwise the draft EIS will be grossly inaccurate and incomplete. These omissions could not have been mere oversights. The omissions are consistent with the process for basing the F-35 in South Burlington being illegitimate. The Air Force should also explain to each and every one of the parents and children in the noise zone how damaging the cognitive abilities of our children is a way of executing the mission of the armed forces to defend them. The inadequate information about cognitive impairment of children in the revised draft EIS may be a factor facilitating Vermont elected political leaders,including the Governor, Senators, Congressman, Burlington Mayor,and the Adjutant General, all failing to act vigorously to defend the cognitive abilities of our Vermont children, and instead falling in line behind commercial developers whose goal is to use the noise of military jets to make money for themselves be tearing down tiny affordable homes near the airport entrance and replacing them with commercial development. The failure to include the last ten years of studies appears to indicate deep penetration of corruption and a failure of legitimate process. Interference with classroom learning The revised draft EIS states: When considering intermittent noise caused by aircraft overflights,guidelines for classroom interference indicate that an appropriate criterion is a limit on indoor background equivalent noise levels of 35 to 40 dB (equivalent noise level [L eq]) and a limit on single events of 50 dB Lmax. The 50 dB Lmax for single events equates to outdoor Lmax of 65 dB and 75 dB for windows open and closed, respectively. A table in the Air Force report says that with the F-16 operating,the Chamberlin School in South Burlington has 25 noise events per hour above a Maximum Outdoor Noise Level of 75 dB Lmax during the school day when windows are open and 5 noise events per hour above that level when windows are closed(page BR4-26). Another table says that these numbers will increase to 26 with windows open and 6 with windows closed if 24 F-35 warplanes are based here (page BR4- 36). Thus,the F-35 will make a bad situation worse for children and teachers at the Chamberlin School. A forthcoming article will describe the recent scientific results showing hearing loss and cardiovascular disorders at levels below the 75 dB DNL indicated as the threshold for health effects in the revised draft EIS. That means people living within the Air Force designated noise zones are subject to a higher level of multiple health risks. What you can do Readers are encouraged to email comments saying that the F-35 should not be based at the airport in South Burlington,Vermont and indicating your concerns about the plane and/or deficiencies in the revised draft EIS to Air Force Civilian Project Manager Nickolas Germanos before the July 15 public comment deadline: nicholas.geiivanosilangley.af.mil Richard Joseph lives in Winooski. James Marc Leas is a patent lawyer in South Burlington. F-35 will cause hearing loss and cardiovascular disorders by Richard Joseph and James Marc Leas To its credit,the Air Force discusses hearing loss and cardiovascular problems caused by aircraft noise in its draft Environmental Impact Statements(EIS). But the Air Force shortchanges the public and decision makers by relying on studies that are more than ten years old. Furthermore, the Air Force will violate even the out of date standard it describes in its own report if it decides to base the F-35 in South Burlington: 770 people live in a noise zone averaging above 75 dB that the Air Force report recognizes as subjecting people to hearing loss and cardiovascular risk. Hearing loss: To its credit,the EIS mentions a 1999 study by Hartmut Ising whose"results indicate that repeated exposure to military low-altitude flight noise with Lmax greater than 114 dB,especially if the noise level increases rapidly,may have the potential to cause noise induced hearing loss in humans(page C-25)." However,while the Air Force report gives average sound level contours on maps,it fails to say what the maximum noise level will be during flights over Winooski and Williston or whether its report of a maximum sound level of 115 dB on the ground as the plane reaches 1000 feet elevation on takeoff(page BR4-21)is representative of the expected sound level residents in those towns will be repeatedly subjected to. The Air Force EIS also mentions a study showing that hearing ability was reduced significantly in individuals who lived near an airport and were frequently exposed to aircraft noise (Chen and Chen 1993) (page C-30). The EIS says that for this study"noise exposure near the airport was reportedly uniform,with [average sound level] greater than 75 dB and maximum noise levels of about 87 dB during overflights." Regarding authoritative standards the Air Force EIS gives two: The National Academy of Sciences Committee on Hearing,Bioacoustics, and Biomechanics(CHABA)identified 75 dB as the minimum level at which hearing loss may occur(CHABA 1977). Finally,the WHO has concluded that environmental and leisure-time noise below an Leg 24 value of 70 dB "will not cause hearing loss in the large majority of the population, even after a lifetime of exposure"(WHO 2000)(page C-24). The Air Force EIS says that 770 people near Burlington airport will live in average noise zones above the 75 dB CHABA standard and that 3126 people will live in average noise zones above the 70 dB WHO standard(page BR4-33).Yet,the Air Force report omits mention that the Air Force will be acting in violation of both of these standards and putting hundreds or thousands of people at risk of hearing loss if it bases the F-35 in South Burlington. Additional concern is raised by the Ising low altitude flight noise study quoted above, given that the Air Force report says people on the ground will be exposed to 115 dB when the F-35 reaches 1000 feet elevation on takeoff. In addition, since all the hearing loss studies cited in the Air Force report are more than ten years old,the revised draft EIS should be updated to include the most recent results of studies on hearing loss in adults and children. Cardiovascular disorders,including hypertension and heart disease: The revised draft EIS includes a number of studies demonstrating the association between noise exposure and cardiovascular disorders,including hypertension and heart disease (page C-25).Nevertheless, it concludes with this statement: In summary,there is no scientific basis for a claim that potential health effects exist for aircraft time average sound levels below 75 dB. The potential for noise to affect physiological health, such as the cardiovascular system, has been speculated;however,no unequivocal evidence exists to support such claims (Harris 1997). However, all the studies cited in the Air Force revised draft EIS are more than ten years old.By contrast, a 2010 study, "Aircraft noise, air pollution, and mortality from myocardial infarction" by Huss et al.Epidemiology. 2010,21:829-836 shows a substantial increase in mortality from heart attacks in people chronically exposed to aircraft noise greater than a day/night average level of only 60 dB. The revised draft EIS also omits mention of a 2011 paper by Wolfgang Babisch, "Cardiovascular effects of noise,"Noise Health, 2011; 13:201-4 which states: It is well understood that noise levels below the hearing damaging criterion cause annoyance, sleep disturbance, cognitive impairment,physiological stress reactions, endocrine imbalance, and cardiovascular disorders. . . The question at present is no longer whether noise causes cardiovascular effects, it is rather: what is the magnitude of the effect in terms of the exposure-response relationship (slope) and the onset or possible threshold. In the recently published [2009] World Health Organization(WHO)Night Noise Guidelines for Europe, it has concluded in its recommendations for health protection that there is'limited' evidence that the risk of cardiovascular diseases increases for night noise levels(L night, outside) [averaging] above 55 dB. The article further states that"the evidence is regarded as `sufficient' by most experts, for [daytime average] noise levels greater than 65 dB"to produce an increased risk of cardiovascular diseases. In particular, all five studies shown in FIG. 2.4 on page 23 of the 2011 World Health Organization(WHO)report, "Burden of Disease from Environmental Noise," show an association between aircraft noise and the prevalence or incidence of high blood pressure. Three of these studies show this elevated risk beginning at an average sound level that is less than 65 r.. dB DNL. Conclusion regarding health effects The Air Force revised draft EIS provides neither members of the public nor the decision maker in Washington with up to date information on the health effects of basing the F-35 in the heavily populated area around the Burlington International Airport. The Air Force report should immediately be revised to include description of studies on health effects of noise,including aircraft noise,published during the past 10 years.Those studies, summarized in the 2011 WHO report, show serious negative health effects,particularly on cognitive development of children, cardiovascular disorders, and hearing loss from noise levels that are substantially lower than the 75 dB average mentioned in the EIS. Even if the out of date 75 dB average asserted in the Air Force report is accepted—which it should not be—the Air Force report says that 770 people in Vermont will be in that zone and therefore at risk.But the recent studies lower that threshold,meaning that thousands of additional people will be put at health risk from basing the F-35 in South Burlington. The omission of studies from the past ten years and the failure to recognize that serious health effects are manifest at substantially lower levels than 75 dB DNL are both gross errors in the revised draft EIS,and they both should be corrected before any fmal EIS or any fmal decision is issued. What you can do Readers are encouraged to email comments saying that the F-35 should not be based at the airport in South Burlington,Vermont and indicating your concerns about the plane and/or deficiencies in the revised draft EIS to Air Force Civilian Project Manager Nickolas Germanos before the July 15 public comment deadline: nicholas.germanosna,langley.af.mil Richard Joseph lives in Winooski. James Marc Leas is a patent lawyer in South Burlington. Page 1 of 1 Celine Ingalls From: Kevin Dorn Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2013 8:44 PM To: Celine Ingalls Subject: FW: We support basing the F-35s in South Burlington Copy this email .......... From: danwetz@comcast.net[danwetz@comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, July 06, 2013 8:59 AM To: Pam Mackenzie; Pat Nowak; Chris Shaw; R Greco; Helen Riehle; Kevin Dorn Subject: We support basing the F-35s in South Burlington Dear City Council Members,please vote to in support of basing th eF35s in South Burlington. The four adult members of the Wetzel household Daniel (57), Marguerite (56), Jamie (21) and John (21) support basing the F35s at the Burlington Airport. We have determined that the benefits to the country and our community out way the minor impacts to those who knowingly bought their houses near to an international airport. We are proud of the members of our family that have severed in the Air Force (John Wetzel USAF 1956- 62) and our family and friends currently serving. Daniel, Marguerite, Jamie, &John Wetzel 183 Catkin Drive South Burlington, VT 7/8/2013 Page 1 of 1 Celine Ingalls From: Kevin Dorn Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2013 8:45 PM To: Celine Ingalls Subject: FW: No council action on F-35 bed down copy this email From: Pam Mackenzie Sent: Saturday,July 06, 2013 7:45 AM To: Kevin Dorn Subject: Fwd: No council action on F-35 bed down Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Keith Epstein<keithepstein@,gmail.com> Date: July 5,2013 9:24:01 PM EDT To: R Greco<rgreco@sburl.com>,Helen Riehle<hriehle@sburl.com>, <pmackenzie@sburl.com>, <cshaw@sburl.com>,<pnowak(a?,sburl.com> Subject: No council action on F-35 bed down Councilors, I'm writing to request that you take no further action on the F-35 bed down at the Monday July 8th meeting. The City Council has already voted on this matter once. Let their vote stand. A City Council vote on any matter does not necessarily represent the popular opinion-it only represents the opinion of the individual City Councilors. Therefore, to my understanding,the City Council opinion carries no more weight with the Air Force than an individual opinion. You were elected to serve the public, and I think that reversing the City position on any matter simply based on the newly elected Councilors' opinions is not in the public interest. To my knowledge, no accurate, ubiased study has been done to determine the majority opinion of South Burlington residents on the F-35 bed down. Therefore, anyone, including the previous City Council,who claims to represent the majority on this matter is incorrect. Revoting hastily does not negate the previous hasty voting or redeem the City in any way. Please let the previous Council vote on the F-35 bed down stand and work as individuals to promote or discourage the bed down, whichever you prefer. Keith Epstein 5 Yandow Drive South Burlington, VT 05403 7/8/2013 June 6, 2013 Dear Councilors, On June 18, 2013 the Council submitted questions to be considered in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the F-35. On May 31, 2013 the FEIS was issued. Our Resolution appears on page E-1358 and responses start on page E-1365. Below I have excerpted the questions we asked in the Resolution and paired them with the "canned" EIS response (meaning the answer is to questions pooled into categories, not our question directly). I have included how they reframe the questions in their response. The DEIS itself can be found at this link www.accplanning.org I hope you find this helpful, though I think you will agree, this is not easy to read. Sincerely, Joan Shannon City Council President EIS Responses to Burlington Resolution Re: F-35 Basing Questions from Council Resolution: • With increased noise zones 65-85 dB DNL,will buyers be able to receive federally guaranteed loans (FHA and VA) financing? • What kind of"special approvals"will be necessary in order to receive federally guaranteed loans? • What additional disclosures will sellers within the 65 DNL contour need to sign in order to sell their homes? Response to all 3 questions: Question as framed by EIS: Potential sellers of homes in areas above 65 dB DNL will have to disclose to prospective buyers and lessees that the properties have been designated as "not suitable for residential use." Potential buyers of these properties will not qualify for federally-guaranteed loans,program assistance, subsidies, or housing insurance. Answer: As noted in Response LU-1,the land use compatiblity guidelines by FICUN are used to determine potential noise impacts on land use. The Air Force does not have the authority to change community land uses or to deem properties as "not suitable for residential use." HUD, FHA, and VA mortgage policies generally prohibit guaranteeing mortgage loans for new homes located within noise zones of 75 dB DNL or greater or within clear zones. These same mortgage policies make availability of federally guaranteed mortgage loans discretionary for new homes located within noise zones of 65 to 75 dB DNL. The term "new home" includes new construction, existing homes that are less than one year old, and existing homes that have been substantially remodeled. HUD, FHA, or VA mortgage policies may also impose conditions on mortgage loan guarantees (such as written acknowledgement of noise conditions) for existing homes located in the 75 dB DNL or greater noise zone or within clear zones. Questions from Council Resolution: • Will any residents be in an"Accident Potential Zone"? Reframed Question: The DEIS does not provide clear information/lacks credibility on CZ,APZ, and AICUZ. Will these areas change after the F-35A beddown? Answer: The CZs,APZs, and RPZs are based on set guidelines depending on factors such as runway length and typical aircraft types. The areas covered by the CZs,APZs, and RPZs are not expected to change as a result of basing operational F-35As. Detailed information on the Clear Zones,Accident Potential Zones,and Runway Protection Zones are provided in Section 3.5 of Chapter 3 as well as each base-specific Section 3.4 of the EIS. The Air Installation Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) is discussed in Section 3.5 and Section 3.11 of Chapter 3 in the EIS. 3.5 Safety 3.5.1 Definition of Resource The Air Force practices Operational Risk Management as outlined in AFI 90-901 Operational Risk Management(Air Force 2000). Requirements outlined in these documents provide for a process to maintain readiness in peacetime and achieve success in combat while safeguarding people and resources.The safety analysis contained in the following sections addresses issues related to the health and well- being of both military personnel and civilians living on or in the vicinity of Burlington AGS, Hill AFB, Jacksonville AGS, McEntire JNGB,Mountain Home AFB, and Shaw AFB, and their associated training airspace.Specifically,this section provides information on hazards associated with aviation safety(APZs or Runway Protection Zones [RPZs], aircraft mishaps, and Bird/Wildlife-Aircraft Strike Hazard [BASH]). The primary safety concern with regard to military training flights is the potential for aircraft mishaps (i.e., crashes) to occur,which could be caused by mid- air collisions with other aircraft or objects,weather difficulties, mechanical failures, pilot error, or BASH. In the training airspace, potential flare debris from F-35A operations represents a topic worthy of discussion, although the possible impacts are negligible at most. APZs are established at military airfields to delineate recommended surrounding land uses for the protection of people and property on the ground.APZs define the areas in the vicinity of a military airfield that would have the highest potential to be affected if an aircraft mishap were to occur.AICUZ guidelines identify three types of APZs for airfields based on aircraft mishap patterns: the Clear Zone,APZ I, and APZ II (Figure 3-2). The standard Clear Zone is a trapezoidal area that extends 3,000 feet from the end of a runway and has the highest probability of being impacted by a mishap.APZ I,which typically extends 5,000 feet from the end of the Clear Zone,has a lower mishap probability; and APZ II,which typically extends 7,000 feet from the end of APZ I,has the lowest mishap probability of the three zones (Air Force 1999). If needed to reflect different departure and arrival patterns,both the shape and size of APZs can be modified.These APZs apply to the military airfields at Hill AFB, McEntire JNGB, Mountain Home AFB, and Shaw AFB. See Figure 3-2.Accident Potential Zones Source:Air Force 1999. Similar to APZs but used at civilian airports, RPZs are trapezoidal zones extending outward from the ends of active runways at commercial airports and delineate those areas recognized as having the greatest risk of aircraft mishaps, most of which occur during take-off or landing. Development restrictions within RPZs are intended to discourage incompatible land use activities from being established in these areas. The RPZ dimension for a particular runway end is a function of the type of aircraft and minimum approach visibility associated with that runway end. For most commercial airports (e.g., Burlington IAP and Jacksonville IAP) with large aircraft, the departure RPZ begins 200 feet from the end of the runway and continues out to 1,700 feet,with a width beginning at 500 feet and expanding as the distance from the runway increases to 1,010 feet wide (FAA 2009). The approach RPZ begins 200 feet before the runway threshold and extends out 1,700 feet in a reverse of the departure RPZ (Figure 3-3) (FAA 2009). See Figure 3-3. Runway Protection Zones Source: FAA 2009. Aircraft mishaps are classified as A, B, C, or D (Table 3-4). Class A mishaps are the most severe with total property damage of$2 million or more or a fatality and/or permanent total disability. Comparison of Class A mishap rates for various aircraft types,as calculated per 100,000 flying hours, provide the basis for evaluating risks among different aircraft and levels of operations. Each base-specific safety section analyzes existing and projected Class A mishap potentials based on flying hours and aircraft types. Source: DoD 2011. BASH and the dangers it presents form another safety concern for aircraft operations. BASH constitutes a safety concern because of the potential for damage to aircraft or injury to aircrews or local populations if an aircraft crash should occur in a populated area.Aircraft can encounter birds at nearly all altitudes up to 30,000 feet MSL; however, most birds fly close to the ground.According to the Air injury or illness not otherwise classified as A, B, or C Resource Definition and Methodology Force Safety Center (AFSC) BASH statistics, more than 50 percent of bird/wildlife strikes occur below 400 feet, and 90 percent occur at less than 2,000 feet AGL (AFSC 2007). Of these strikes, approximately 67 percent occur in the airfield environment (AFSC 2007). Waterfowl present the greatest BASH potential due to their congregational flight patterns and because,when migrating,they can be encountered at altitudes up to 20,000 feet AGL. Raptors also present a substantial hazard due to their size and soaring flight patterns. In general,the threat of bird/wildlife-aircraft strikes increases during March and April and from August through November due to migratory activities. The Air Force BASH program was established to minimize the risk for collisions of birds/wildlife and aircraft and the subsequent loss of life and property. In accordance with AFI 91-202, U.S.Air Force Mishap Prevention Program (Air Force 1998), requires each flying unit in the Air Force (including the AFRC and ANG) to develop a BASH plan to reduce hazardous bird/wildlife activity relative to airport flight operations.The intent of each plan is to reduce BASH issues at airfields by creating an integrated hazard abatement program through awareness, avoidance, monitoring, and actively controlling bird and animal population movements. Some of the procedures outlined in the plan include monitoring the airfield for bird and other wildlife activity, issuing bird hazard warnings,initiating bird/wildlife avoidance procedures when potentially hazardous bird/wildlife activities are reported, and submitting BASH reports for all incidents. Section 2.1.2 includes a detailed discussion of potential risks from flare debris falling to the ground under authorized training airspace.These risks are assessed for each alternative, and expressed in terms of estimated probabilities of debris striking a person. 3.5.2 Analysis Methodology Development and basing of the F-35A includes a robust safety clearance program conducted by test pilots in multiple phases at the Lockheed Martin aircraft test facility and several developmental test bases. Modeling, simulation, and ground tests reduce the uncertainties of flight testing, and the flight-test program includes more than 30 aircraft dedicated to ensuring flight safety and reducing risks associated with new technologies. The F-35A will meet all DoD and FAA flight clearance standards prior to production. In addition,there is a post-production safety approval process and a DoD acceptance process required by the Air Force. At publication of this EIS,there have not been enough flight hours to accurately depict the specific safety record for this new aircraft. Therefore,the analysis used similar fighter aircraft safety records. Mishaps analysis was based on that fighter aircraft to draw operational history. For APZs/RPZs and BASH, a comparative safety analysis was performed using the existing conditions and calculating the expected changes as a result of implementing the proposed action.This evaluation also considered whether new construction could be an obstruction to air navigation but no obstruction issues were identified. The assessment of safety examines how the no-action alternative and proposed action would affect safety at each alternative airfield location and within the associated training airspace. Since no modifications or additions are proposed for the current airspace structure,the impact analysis focuses on changes in airspace use that would result from the addition or loss of annual airfield and airspace operations with the arrival of the F-35A and departure of F-16 or F-15 aircraft. Impacts on air traffic safety were assessed with respect to the potential for disruption of air traffic pattern and systems, and changes in existing levels of air traffic safety. Factors used to assess the impacts on air traffic included an alternative's potential to result in: increased numbers of flights such that they could not be accommodated within established operational procedures and flight patterns; need for an airspace modification; or increased air traffic that might increase collision potential between military and non-participating civilian operations. Probabilities of flare debris striking a person on the ground under training airspace authorized for flare use considered the number of flares dispensed annually,the area under the airspace (square miles), population densities, and average time outdoors where strikes could occur. These estimates accounted for different airspace configurations, restrictions on flare use, and number of flares dispensed at the six alternative locations. Public safety impacts are considered relative to whether the general public is endangered as a result of proposed Air Force activities. For each training activity or group of similar activities,an estimate of risk to the general public was formulated, based on Air Force safety procedures. Existing AFI and regulations provide operational and safety procedures for all normal Air Force aerial events. Several factors were considered in evaluating the effects of Air Force proposed activities on public safety. These factors include proximity to the public, access control, scheduling, public notification of events, frequency of events, duration of events, safety procedures, operational control of training events, and safety history. Land Use Compatibility Guidelines In June 1980, an ad hoc FICUN published guidelines (FICUN 1980) relating DNL to compatible land uses. This committee was composed of representatives from DoD, Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development; USEPA: and the Veterans Administration. Since the issuance of these guidelines, federal agencies have generally adopted these guidelines for noise analyses. Following the lead of the committee,the DoD and FAA adopted the concept of land- use compatibility as the accepted measure of aircraft noise effect.Air Force guidelines are reprinted in Table C-4 (Appendix C), along with the explanatory notes included in the regulation. These guidelines are not mandatory (note the footnote "*" in the table), rather they are recommendations to provide the best means for determining noise impact for communities adjacent to bases. For commercial airports,the FAA has adopted similar guidelines (as set forth in the Federal Aviation Regulations [FAR] Part 150) and these are presented in Table C-5 (Appendix C). Again, these are recommendations only; it is up to the city/county zoning and planning entities to determine what land uses are compatible and how they will deal with incompatibilities (e.g.,what type of development is allowed, instituting residential buyouts, or whether noise attenuation efforts will be done in residential units). These land use compatibility guidelines provide a gauge for assessing impacts around busy airfields like those considered for beddown of the F-35A. Other than residential lands and schools, hospitals, and churches, other types of land uses are compatible with noise levels of 65 to 70 dB DNL.As noise levels increase, fewer land use remain compatible. In general,residential land uses normally are not compatible with outdoor DNL values above 65 dB, and the extent of residential land area and populations exposed to DNL of 65 dB and higher provide the best means for assessing the noise impacts of the proposed action. For effects on schools, churches,and hospitals, refer to Section 3.3, Noise. Areas under the airspace include federal, state, and local government lands as well as private lands. Sensitive land use areas, such as Wilderness Areas,Wildlife Refuges, State and National Parks, are of particular interest in this analysis. Federal and state geo-databases were used to identify land ownership, management, and special use areas in the vicinity of airspace. Federal lands are administered by agencies, including the BLM,the USFS,the USFWS, and the NPS.This analysis used geographic information systems to calculate the location and acreage of each land management area located under the airspace. Management areas, special use areas, and their respective acreages are reported in both tabular and map formats. Recreational activities were considered within the context of special use areas and were not analyzed specifically. Noise compatibility analysis of special use areas would include all activities within the areas, including recreation. 3.11.2 Analysis Methodology After describing the existing conditions,the analysis examines the extent to which the beddown alternatives would be consistent with state, regional, and local conservation and development plans and zoning regulations. Changes in land use from new construction are analyzed to determine compatibility with existing and planned uses. In addition,the analysis assesses changes in aircraft noise levels around the bases and in the airspace as a result of the proposed action and alternatives. When compared to baseline conditions, land use plans,and land use regulations, the magnitude of the change represents the level of impacts. Compatibility standards such as those established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and AICUZ program provide the means to evaluate impacts. Changes to ownership or status commonly represent the types of impacts evaluated for lands underlying training airspace. Since no portion of the proposed action would alter the structure, size, or operation of DoD range lands, and acquisition of new non-DoD lands would not be required,alteration of ownership would not pose an issue. Similarly,the proposed action would not generate changes to the status or use of underlying lands, or plans and policies implemented for their management. Therefore, the only source of potential effects to land use would result from changes to noise from overflights that could be perceived as incompatible with current uses, particularly recreation and wilderness aesthetics. Lacking a quantitative or regulatory standard for such impacts,this analysis considers the degree of change and overall noise levels in defining potential impacts to underlying uses and activities. Assessment of land use compatibility considered the overall level of subsonic and supersonic noise, as well as the degree of change. Noise is reported as the amount of perceptible change in noise levels; the frequency of overflights, especially those at lower altitudes; perceived sensitivities of land uses; and where appropriate, the change in numbers of sonic booms. Council Resolution Question: • Will there be any risk of hearing impairment for adults, children and infants due to F-3 5 training? On what do you base your answer? Reframed Question: Noise from F-35 will cause hearing damage. Answer: Each base-specific Section 3.2.1.2 discusses the potential for hearing loss under each alternative scenario (for example, see Section BR3.2.1.2).The methodology used to estimate the risk of potential hearing loss is described in Chapter 3,Section 3.3.3. Department of Defense policy states that populations exposed to noise levels at or greater than 80 dB DNL have the greatest risk of potential hearing loss (see Appendix C, Section C2.5 for more details). C2.5.1 Hearing Loss and Aircraft Noise The 1982 USEPA Guidelines report specifically addresses the criteria and procedures for assessing the noise-induced hearing loss in terms of the Noise- Induced Permanent Threshold Shift (NIPTS), a quantity that defines the permanent change in hearing level, or threshold, caused by exposure to noise (USEPA 1982). This effect is also described as Potential Hearing Loss (PHL). Numerically,the NIPTS is the change in threshold averaged over the frequencies 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz that can be expected from daily exposure to noise over a normal working lifetime of 40 years,with the exposure beginning at an age of 20 years.A grand average of the NIPTS over time (40 years) and hearing sensitivity(10 to 90 percentiles of the exposed population) is termed the Average NIPTS, or Ave NIPTS for short. The Average Noise Induced Permanent Threshold Shift(Ave. NIPTS) that can be expected for noise exposure as measured by the DNL metric is given in Table C-7. For example,for a noise exposure of 80 dB DNL,the expected lifetime average value of NIPTS is 2.5 dB, or 6.0 dB for the 10th percentile. Characterizing the noise exposure in terms of DNL will usually overestimate the assessment of hearing loss risk as DNL includes a 10 dB weighting factor for aircraft operations occurring between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. If,however, flight operations between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. account for 5 percent or less of the total 24-hour operations,the overestimation is on the order of 1.5 dB. From a civilian airport perspective,the scientific community has concluded that there is little likelihood that the resulting noise exposure from aircraft noise could result in either a temporary or permanent hearing loss. Studies on community hearing loss from exposure to aircraft flyovers near airports showed that there is no danger, under normal circumstances, of hearing loss due to aircraft noise (Newman and Beattie 1985).The USEPA criterion (Leq24 = 70 dBA) can be exceeded in some areas located near airports,but that is only the case outdoors. Inside a building, where people are more likely to spend most of their time,the average noise level will be much less than 70 dBA (Eldred and von Gierke 1993). Eldred and von Gierke also report that"several studies in the U.S.,Japan, and the U.K.have confirmed the predictions that the possibility for permanent hearing loss in communities, even under the most intense commercial take-off and landing patterns, is remote." At military airbases, as individual aircraft noise levels are increasing with the introduction of new aircraft, a 2009 DoD policy directive requires that hearing loss risk be estimated for the at risk population, defined as the population exposed to DNL greater than or equal to 80 dB and higher (DoD 2009). Specifically, DoD components are directed to "use the 80 Day-Night A-Weighted(DNL)noise contour to identify populations at the most risk of potential hearing loss." This does not preclude populations outside the 80 DNL contour, i.e., at lower exposure levels, from being at some degree of risk of hearing loss. However, the analysis should be restricted to populations within this contour area,including residents of on-base housing. The exposure of workers inside the base boundary area should be considered occupational and evaluated using the appropriate DoD component regulations for occupational noise exposure. With regard to military airspace activity, studies have shown conflicting results.A 1995 laboratory study measured changes in human hearing from noise representative of low-flying aircraft on MTRs (Nixon et al. 1993). The potential effects of aircraft flying along MTRs is of particular concern because of maximum overflight noise levels can exceed 115 dB,with rapid increases in noise levels exceeding 30 dB per second. In this study, participants were first subjected to four overflight noise exposures at A-C-24 weighted levels of 115 dB to 130 dB. Fifty percent of the subjects showed no change in hearing levels, 25 percent had a temporary 5 dB increase in sensitivity (the people could hear a 5 dB wider range of sound than before exposure), and 25 percent had a temporary 5 dB decrease in sensitivity (the people could hear a 5 dB narrower range of sound than before exposure). In the next phase, participants were subjected to a single overflight at a maximum level of 130 dB for eight successive exposures, separated by 90 seconds or until a temporary shift in hearing was observed. The temporary hearing threshold shifts showed an increase in sensitivity of up to 10 dB. In another study of 115 test subjects between 18 and 50 years old in 1999, temporary threshold shifts were measured after laboratory exposure to military low-altitude flight noise (Ising et al. 1999). According to the authors, the results indicate that repeated exposure to military low-altitude flight noise with Lmax greater than 114 dB, especially if the noise level increases rapidly, may have the potential to cause noise induced hearing loss in humans. Aviation and typical community noise levels near airports are not comparable to the occupational or recreational noise exposures associated with hearing loss. Studies of aircraft noise levels associated with civilian airport activity have not definitively correlated permanent hearing impairment with aircraft activity. It is unlikely that airport neighbors will remain outside their homes 24 hours per day, so there is little likelihood of hearing loss below an average sound level of 75 dB DNL. Near military airbases, average noise levels above 75 dB may occur, and while new DoD policy dictates that NIPTS be evaluated, no research results to date have definitively related permanent hearing impairment to aviation noise. Question from Council Resolution: • Will the Air Guard continue to exist and support services at the Burlington International Airport if the F-35s are not based at the Burlington International Airport and the F-16s have exceeded their utility? Reframed Question: Would the beddown of the F-35A at Burlington International Airport change the mission of the 158 FW? If the F-35A does not beddown at Burlington,would this result in the closing of Burlington AGS? Answer: The beddown of the F-35A at Burlington AGS would represent a continuation of the 158 FW's current mission as described in Section BR1.0. Section 2.2.5 in Chapter 2 of the EIS defines the No-Action Alternative which for this EIS reflects the status quo where no F-35A operational basing would occur at any of the bases. At each location, including Burlington AGS,there are ongoing and currently planned activities that have been approved by the Air Force/Air National Guard and supported by existing NEPA documentation and as such are considered as part of the No-Action Alternative. Therefore, if there is no F-35A operational beddown at Burlington AGS the current mission would continue. Question from Council Resolution: • Will the Air Guard continue to exist and support services at the Burlington International Airport if the F-35s are not based at the Burlington International Airport and the F-16s have exceeded their utility? Reframed Question: Would the beddown of the F-35A at Burlington International Airport change the mission of the 158 FW? If the F-35A does not beddown at Burlington,would this result in the closing of Burlington AGS? Answer: Would the beddown of the F-35A at Burlington International Airport change the mission of the 158 FW? If the F-35A does not beddown at Burlington,would this result in the closing of Burlington AGS? Council Resolution request: AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Burlington requests that the Air Force bring an F-35 to the Burlington International Airport as soon as possible, so that residents can experience the actual noise level,rather than trying to infer how a loud a particular decibel increase will be experientially. Reframed question: The Air Force should bring several F-35A aircraft and fly some sorties so that residents can judge the noise for themselves. Answer: There is not a sufficient number of F-35A aircraft available or enough trained pilots to provide a demonstration of the F-35A aircraft. F-35A noise level measurements used in this EIS are the most accurate data available for the aircraft. Flight profiles expected to be used by the F-35A were derived by repeated flight simulator tests, and were applied to local flying conditions at the beddown installation. Individual overflight noise levels are compared in the Base and Airspace Noise Environmental consequences sections for each base. Field checks have been conducted which indicated good agreement between levels predicted by NOISEMAP and actual noise levels. Vermont Government Rots from the Top A Weapon of Mass Destruction, F-35 Also Destroys the Democratic Process By William Boardman F-35,At$400 Billion And Counting, Is a Symptom of Much Greater Disease When the city council in a city of just 18,000 people reverses a vote it took a year earlier, it's not usually off national significance,but if the South Burlington City Council votes as expected on July 8,in support of basing the F-35 strike fighter in Vermont, it will illustrate how deep the tentacles of national power reach into local government in this country. The F-35 nuclear-capable bomber, designed for aggressive war, is one of the more obvious tumors of the military-industrial-political cancer that has metastasized throughout the American system, from Congress and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., all the way,now, to the five member city council in South Burlington. In 2012,the city council was led by a retired Air Force colonel who at first supported having the F-35 as a noisy neighbor-- until she researched it carefully. After Col. Rosanne Greco, a former Pentagon planner,presented her findings to the council (and the public),the council voted on two separate occasions - 4-1 and 4-0 - theshould be based h that F-35 aseu elsewhere. F-35 Boosters Bought the Government They Wanted in South Burlington And then there was an election in March 2013 in which councilor Pam Mackenzie - who had been the lone vote against the F-35 -helped bankroll perhaps the most expense local election ever, supporting two candidates who are now poised to vote with her and in favor of basing the world's most expensive weapons system in a city where it will have significantly destructive effects on the civilian population. If it happens, this will be a deliberate and callous vote in favor of inevitable collateral damage,without redeeming social importance. According to the Air Force's own study,the F-35 is much louder than the F-16s presently based at Burlington International Airport, and those quieter planes have already made more than 200 homes uninhabitable. The F-35 would render another 1,300 or more homes uninhabitable because of noise -a wholesale destruction of affordable housing in a market where affordable housing is already scarce enough. None of the public officials who support basing the F-35 in Vermont's most densely populated area- not the Air Force, not Vermont's Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy or independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, nor Democratic Rep. Peter Welch nor Democratic Gov. Peter Shumlin, nor Democratic Mayor of Burlington Miro Weinberger,nor any other statewide elected official- not one of them has even expressed serious concern over the destruction of housing for lower income Vermonters, much less put forward a serious plan to mitigate the destruction. It's Military Pork, It's a Career Boost,Why Should We Talk About It? Most Vermont political office holders duck the issue entirely, or, like Democratic Speaker of the House William Lippert,hide behind the fiction that the decision is up to the feds - at the same time the feds are inviting public comment. Lippert and his allies have been able to block those House members who oppose the F-35 from getting a serious vote on the issue. And now the city council of South Burlington includes people who,like Sen.Leahy's relatives, stand to gain personally from an Air Force decision in their favor. As soon as Pam Mackenzie, daughter of an Air Force veteran, had funded the successful election of two allies, she enjoyed their support in replacing Greco as council chair,with herself. In May 2012, when Mackenzie was trying to block public discussion of the F-35, a reporter described her publicly stated reasoning this way: "Pam said that she supports the guard in anything they want to do because her dad was in the air force. That's it. She voted against providing the public with a forum to question and discuss the impacts of the F-35 because of personal bias." Conflicts of Interest Outweigh The Harm The Public Will Suffer Mackenzie is the CEO of the DeckerZinn management consulting firm.Although she has Air Force ties and spent lavishly to elect allies to the council, she has not apparently made any formal disclosure of conflicts of interest, nor has she apparently recused herself from involving her official duties with her personal interests. One of her new allies was an opponent when Mackenzie was first elected in 2012. But this time she supported Chris Shaw who describes himself on Twitter as a "husband, hockey dad, teacher, city councilor,justice of the peace, lax bro and responsible renegade --just your average brainy,brawny,balding badboy!" Shortly after his election, Shaw said: "I don't have a specific policy change agenda. My agenda is to be a respectful listener." What These People Say Has Little Relevance To What They Do Shaw ran as a supporter of local basing of the F-35, as did the other Mackenzie beneficiary, Pat Nowak,an investment advisor who refused to disclose her party affiliation during the campaign. But they ran as a team,with Mackenzie's largesse and support of the F-35 in common. By all accounts, significant outside money also helped make this campaign roughly ten times more expensive than the usual city council races, but Vermont's campaign reporting laws are such that demonstrating the exact dimensions of a candidate's spending is difficult. According to Seven Days, "Shaw and Nowak are representative of a South Burlington 'old guard' aligned closely with developers and other business interests." The Burlington Free Press reported that Nowak and Mackenzie "agreed, for instance, that a new vote on the F-35 is not high on their agenda. During the campaign, Nowak said in an interview: "The single most pressing concern for our city is the degree of divisiveness that has entered the everyday processes of operation and decision making. It could be said that great issues are at stake and disagreement is normal and healthy. I don't believe the atmosphere derives from the issues -- they could be settled with research, analysis and civil discussion." With An Opportunity to Hear New Health Information, Council Stonewalls At the July 1 council meeting, four women,three of them elderly and living at a facility within the zone the F-35 will make uninhabitable, asked the council to delay its July 8 meeting for 48 hours. As reported in Vermont Commons: "All of dd d the L Burlington soft A 1 four the women who aUU1CJJCU JOlitll city council where spoken, polite and brief.... "These women were petitioning for a delay because they wanted citizens to have the opportunity to attend another public meeting, this one regarding the effects of aircraft noise on the health of children,before making up their minds on the F-35 basing. This July 9th public meeting will feature doctors and researchers sharing their knowledge of the health effects of airplane noise on children's physical and mental health and learning ability." At that July 1 meeting, Nowak opposed any further"research, analysis and civil discussion." Shaw showed little capacity for being"a respectful listener," as he made personal attacks on his fellow council member, Greco. He adamantly opposed hearing any new information about the F-35 and refused to discuss it rationally,according to the transcript of the meeting. Mackenzie, Nowak, and Shaw refused to postpone the July 8 meeting. Their minds were apparently made up, their decision made, information of any sort would just waste their time. As Mackenzie put it, "I don't have to justify my reasons." Page 1 of 1 Celine Ingalls _ m From: Kevin Dorn Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2013 8:48 PM To: Celine Ingalls Subject: FW: You are invited! Tuesday July 9th at Chamberlin School in South Burlington Copy the email From: citizenallianceforpeople@gmail.com [citizenallianceforpeople@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2013 11:49 PM To: CitizenAllianceforPeople@gmail.com Subject: You are invited! Tuesday July 9th at Chamberlin School in South Burlington Dear Vermont Legislator or City/Town Officer: You are cordially invited to attend the"The Last Call for Kids: A Public Hearing on the F-35 and Children." Startling new information on the harmful effects of aircraft noise on children will be presented. A representative from the U.S.Air Force may also be in attendance to discuss the F-35A basing process and to answer questions. The purpose of the event is to share this new information about the F35's projected health hazards,and to give the people who are affected by this basing decision the opportunity to ask questions, express their concerns, and make comments. This public hearing will take place at 7:00 PM on Tuesday,July 9, 2013 at the Chamberlin Elementary School in South Burlington at 262 White Street in South Burlington. Your attendance at this public hearing would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Citizen Alliance for People over Planes citizenallianceforpeople@gmail.com 7/8/2013 F-35,HEALTH& SAFETY The heated controversy over the merits of basing the F-35 at Burlington International Airport confirms that there are strong arguments on both sides which must be objectively evaluated. The assessment should logically start with the question of the suitability of the F-35 itself. It has been extremely costly, is far over budget and behind schedule, and has performance limitations that put to serious question whether it can or should replace the F-16 in Burlington or elsewhere. If we accept for the sake of discussion that the F-35 will indeed be implemented, it seems implausible that Burlington would have ranked first among the contenders were it not for the highly prestigious YANG Unit based here, and the high-ranking U.S. Senator Leahy, who has done so much to support their mission over his years of service. Both are highly deserving,but it is hard to overlook the strong suggestion that data has been"fudged' to move Burlington to the top of the list. The argument that there would be harmful economic consequences if the F-35 were not based here, is unsubstantiated and unpersuasive.The F-16 will serve a major role in our defense for the foreseeable future. While commercial real estate development would undoubtedly thrive as homes around the airport are abandoned due to excessive noise levels, this would be at the expense of a previously vibrant neighborhood, which contained much of the area's affordable housing. If we were starting with a clean slate, we would NEVER consider basing such a fighter jet at an airport sited within the most densely populated area of the state. As a physician,I'm deeply concerned about health and safety issues posed by the F-35. The crash risk of this particular developing plane has been cited previously, and is frightening to contemplate in such a populous area. The noise issue far exceeds the nuisance range, and at the estimated 115 Decibel level is characterized by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association as"painful". Don't be misled by the ads claiming a few minutes of noise per day: the noise will be much more intrusive,and may provoke anxiety or panic reactions in children, and hearing loss at any age. The positions and statements of our congressional delegation and Governor have thus far been disappointingly and conspicuously lame. I would urge the South Burlington City Council,and any group who might address this issue,to include safety and health concerns, and involve the input of qualified audiologists and child psychologists. Rather than simply taking a position for or against the F-35,the Council may best serve the community by urging and ensuring that the Air Force critically reviews and weighs ALL relevant data,before arriving at a final recommendation. Respectfully, Michael J.Scollins (214 Meadowood Drive, South Burlington; 802-658-2330) Page 1 of 2 Celine Ingalls From: Kevin Dorn Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 3:47 PM To: Celine Ingalls Subject: FW: F-35 PC Response Attachments: SB PC F35 Input letter 6-19-2012.pdf Celine—copy the email only—not the attachment Kevin Dorn Interim City Manager City of South Burlington South Burlington,VT 05403 kdorn@sburl.com (802) 846-4107 • Notice- Under Vermont's Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may he inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error,please notif, us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation. From:Jessica Louisos Sent: Monday,July 08, 2013 12:39 PM To: Pam Mackenzie; Chris Shaw; R Greco; Helen Riehle; Pat Nowak Cc: Paul Conner; Kevin Dorn;gretchen.calcagni@gmail.com; btgagnon@comcast.net;Sophie Quest; Barbara Benton;Jessica Louisos;Sophie Quest; Tracey Harrington; Ted Riehle Subject: F-35 PC Response Hello Councilors, I saw the agenda for tonight's special meeting about the F-35 basing. In June of 2012 the Planning Commission formed an official response to the F-35A Basing in South Burlington. That response was sent to Mr. Nicholas Germanos at that time and is attached to this email for your information. I believe that the information in the letter will help inform your discussion based on landuse specific issues for our city.The Commission has added this topic to our agenda for tomorrow nights meeting. I will not be able to attend the meeting tonight due to a prior planned celebration of my parents 35th wedding anniversary. Because I can not attend your meeting tonight, I am also including my personal opinion for the public record. My personal position as a resident continues to follow the June 2012 Commission position to not support the F-35A bedding at Burlington International Airport. 7/8/2013 Page 2 of 2 I am available if you have questions on the discussion of the Commission at the time of the attached response. 578-2016 Thank you, Jessica Louisos South Burlington Planning Commission Chair Notice-Under Vermont's Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error,please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation. 7/8/2013 Celine Ingalls From: Kevin Dorn Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 3:38 PM To: Celine Ingalls Subject: FW: F-35s Kevin Dorn Interim City Manager City of South Burlington South Burlington, VT 05403 kdorn@sburl.com (802) 846-4107 Notice - Under Vermont's Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation. Original Message From: R Greco Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 2:07 PM To: Pam Mackenzie; Helen Riehle; patn1553@gmail.com; cashaw@post.harvard.edu Cc: Kevin Dorn; Tom Hubbard Subject: FW: F-35s Hi Rosanne, Unfortunately, I can't make it to the meeting tonight, but I wanted to let you know that I'm not in favor of basing the F-35s here. I grew up in a military family & my brother will deploy to Afghanistan in September, so I'm not against the military. But I am against this project. I don't think it's right for our community, the local environment, or that it is a good project to continue to put funds into at all. I don't believe it's the right project for us in Vermont. I hope the City Councilors will vote to represent what the citizens of South Burlington want on this issue. Unfortunately, I'm skeptical that this will happen. I hope the Council proves me wrong on this. Please feel free to pass on this email to all the City Councilors, so that you all can take my view into account with all the others you will hear tonight. Thank you for considering my perspective, Lisa Bedinger 2 Deane Street 1 Celine Ingalls From: Kevin Dorn Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 1:08 PM To: Celine Ingalls Subject: FW: SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON F-35 TONIGHT Copy email Kevin Dorn Interim City Manager City of South Burlington South Burlington, VT 05403 kdorn@sburl.com (802) 846-4107 Notice - Under Vermont's Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff, or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation. Original Message From: ellenpowell911@comcast.net [mailto:ellenpowel1911@comcast.net] Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 11:53 AM To: Kevin Dorn Subject: SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON F-35 TONIGHT Dear S. Burlington City Counselors, I read online this morning that you are considering changing the City Council's position on the F-35, and there is a special meeting at Chamberlin School this evening to hear from residents of S. Burlington. I am currently in Maine and will not be arriving home until July 14th, so obviously I will not be at the meeting tonight. I WOULD BE THERE IF I COULD. I WOULD SIGN UP FOR MY TWO MINUTES TO WEIGH IN. Since I cannot be there, I am writing you my comments. I have also left phone messages on each of your telephones. This is a follow-up email in case you didn't get my phone message. I DO NOT WANT THOSE F-35s BASED HERE. I WAS HIGHLY DISMAYED TO SEE THAT CITY COUNCIL IS EVEN CONSIDERING CHANGING ITS OFFICIAL POSITION. THIS IS NOT, I REPEAT NOT, AN APPROPRIATE PLACE TO HOUSE THESE THINGS. THEY DO NOT, I REPEAT DO NOT, BELONG IN AN AREA WHERE 7,000 PEOPLE, WHICH INCLUDES THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN AND BABIES WITH DEVELOPING EARS, AT MINIMUM WILL GET BLASTED MULTIPLE TIMES PER DAY WITH THE NOISE FROM THE F-35 BOMBERS. I HAVE LIVED WITH THE F-16 BOMBERS FOR 16 YEARS, WHICH ARE LOUD ENOUGH. I REPEAT, LOUD ENOUGH. I DO NOT, I REPEAT DO NOT, WANT TO BE SUBJECTED TO ONE DECIMAL LOUDER, LET ALONE MANY MANY DECIBELS LOUDER. ANOTHER REASON I DO NIT WANT THESE THINGS TAKING OFF, LANDING, AND FLYING OVERHEAD IS BECAUSE THEY MAY (WILL?) BE CARRYING NUCLEAR WAR HEADS. I AM EXTREMELY DISMAYED TO HEAR MY CITY COUNCIL IS CONSIDERING CHANGING ITS POSITION on the f-35' I I Yes, please consider this statement being shouted, not spoken. I hope that the fact that I am eight hours away and unable to tell you in person at a certain place, on a certain date, and at a certain time will NOT disqualify my opinion on this from being taken into 1 consideration. Please let me know if it WILL. If you want to speak with me, my cell is 355-8528. Sincerely, Ellen Powell 911 Dorset St. , Apt 31 S. Burlington, VT, 05403 2 Page 1 of 2 Celine Ingalls From: Kevin Dorn Sent: Monday, July 08, 2013 1:06 PM To: Celine Ingalls Subject: FW: F-35 Public Hearing Comment Copy email Kevin Dorn Interim City Manager City of South Burlington South Burlington, VT 05403 kdorn@sburl.com (802)846-4107 Notice- Under Vermont's Public Records Act, all e-mail, e-mail attachments as well as paper copies of documents received or prepared for use in matters concerning City business, concerning a City official or staff or containing information relating to City business are likely to be regarded as public records which may be inspected by any person upon request, unless otherwise made confidential by law. If you have received this message in error,please notify us immediately by return email. Thank you for your cooperation. From: Bernard Paquette [mailto:bernie.paquette@yahoo.corn] Sent: Monday,July 08, 2013 10:48 AM To: Pam Mackenzie; Pat Nowak; Chris Shaw; R Greco; Helen Riehle Cc: Kevin Dorn Subject: F-35 Public Hearing Comment Pam, Pat, Chris, Rosanne, Helen, (City Council members), Within your deliberations to establish the current position of South Burlington City Council regarding the proposed bed-down of the F-35 at Vermont Air National Guard in South Burlington-BTV Airport, please consider the impact upon citizens of South Burlington, particularly those living in the Chamberlin District, due to the noise level encountered when the jets are in operation. Please include in your noise impact assessment not only the noise from take-offs but also the high pitch noise emitted from the jets while they are stationary with their engines running and while they are taxiing. The noise from this part of the operation from the current F- 16's occurs for a far longer duration than the take-off. I would presume the duration of stationary and taxiing noise would be similar on the F-35's. I offer a part of my overall opinion in verse here, our Town 7/8/2013 Page 2 of 2 Our Town There rockets don't soar but jets do roar; Why must war be forever more dividing friends,family and neighbor petitioning door to door some beating their chest for the corps some decrying no louder must they soar while FP,FPF, and The Other Paper keep score. What for do you City Council speak for? Will you price war? Abhor or adore; set the ground floor though beware the trap door in what you stand for citizens galore are listening and hearing more (or less). What decor will you choose for our Town? Let this not be a class war forget not those who who shout a quiet roar as much as ads from gold ore. May we all deplore war and honor the Peace Corps. May we all hear without fear patriotism we hold so dear, quiet.... out our screen door, sitting down together stars and stripes quality of life together, in our town. Bernie Paquette Kirby Road South Burlington, VT 7/8/2013