#NoElectironicWarfareRange #EndWarProfitting #EndWarCulture Karen Sullivan analysis: Planning for the Navy’s electronic warfare testing and training on the Olympic Peninsula has been separated into ground, air, and sea-based activities. Each activity has its separate procedures and separate documents. This has resulted in four separate public comment periods in the last five months of 2014. Not surprisingly, this has caused widespread public confusion and frustration. If you commented back in November on the Environmental Assessment regarding ground based activities in the Olympic National Forest related to the Electronic Warfare Range, your work is not done. There are now two more open comment periods - each on different aspects of the EWR. Following is a summary of the four separate comment periods: 1. August (Closed): The Navy’s Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment (EA). This covered ground-based activities proposed for Pacific Beach and Octopus Mountain, and the use of roads in the Olympic National Forest by mobile emitters. Due to the Navy’s lack of proper notification, the public was unaware of this EA, and therefore made no comments. 2. September – November (Closed): A parallel process to the above, in which the Forest Service’s decision on whether to issue a Special Use Permit for the Navy to use roads in the Olympic National Forest was open for comment. The public became aware of this for the first time in early October. More than 3,000 comments poured in by the end of November. 3. Deadline January 9 (Now Open): A draft EIS is being prepared on the Navy’s addition of 36 EA-18G Growler jets to its fleet of 82 Growlers already at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island. Scoping meetings were conducted on this in late November and early December. You still have an opportunity to comment on what the scope of that EIS should be, but the deadline of January 9 is rapidly approaching. The Navy’s main web page for this process is here: whidbeyeis and the electronic comments page, which is probably the best avenue for comments, is here: whidbeyeis/Comment.aspx You can submit more than one comment. Remember that online comments do not need to disclose a physical address. You do not need to write your address in the blanks in order for your comment to be accepted. Everything we write on the Navy’s online forms will be in the public domain. So compose your comments offline using the attached file from Quiet Skies Over San Juan County as a guide, and then copy and paste them online, skipping the address blanks. You will need to disclose an email address, however. Its also not a bad idea to copy your federal and state elected representatives with your comment letters. Unless the public makes them aware, they may not do anything about it. In addition to what Quiet Skies Over San Juan County suggests in the attached file, you should add an objection that the ground based activities, covered in the Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range EA, should not have been segmented from this draft EIS. Please consider suggesting in your letter that the impacts of those activities, and the impacts on the areas that the 36 new EA-18Gs will be flying over, as well as the existing 82 Growler jets, should be covered in this EIS. These scoping comments were writing are meant to guide the Navy in developing the Draft EIS. If they do not answer our concerns when the DEIS is published, then we will have the chance to comment on that before its finalized, and if they still do not address our concerns there will be a documented public record for a court case. Nothing has been provided to the public on impacts from fuel dumping over water, our communities, or the Olympic National Forest or Olympic National Park. The Navy admits that it does occur, primarily over the area to the west of the runways at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, but that it occurs at 8,000 feet and therefore the fuel vaporizes before it reaches the surface. Jet fuel is full of heavy metals and other toxic compounds, and, news flash, gravity is the law. Perhaps the solvents may vaporize, but no information exists on the effects of these toxic compounds that must eventually come down to the surface. We have also not been told anything about the type of fuel used in Growler jets. Another question to ask is: Has independent research been conducted, on effects of jet fuel emissions or fuel dumping over the National Forest and National Park, or over communities near where fuel is dumped? Attached are two files on fuel dumping to give you an idea of how and why it occurs. Also attached is a file by a physicist at UC-Berkeley, on the amount of carbon dioxide produced by a Growler jet. 4. Deadline February 2 (Now Open): A “Supplemental Draft,” to the January 2014 EIS called “Northwest Training and Testing Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement” was recently announced. This is for sea-based activity. The changes in the Supplemental Draft Include: · Expansion of sonar and explosive activities in the “training zone” to include the Strait of Juan de Fuca, the waters off Indian Island, Puget Sound, and the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary, which consists of 2,408 square nautical miles of Olympic Peninsula coastline. · Marine Mammal kills: o The Navy estimates thousands of marine mammals would be killed or harmed. · Maritime effects o Hood Canal Bridge Effects § The Navy predicts more and longer bridge closings at Hood Canal, which will not be announced until the last minute due to “national security.” o More Private vessel boardings, called “visits” o Notices to Move § Fishermen will be given one hour’s notice to vacate an area of Naval activity, and must abandon deployed fishing gear such as in-water nets or pots The main web page for this EIS is here: nwtteis and the written comment page with public meetings schedule is here: nwtteis/G…/ReviewoftheSupplementDraftEISOEIS.aspx Remember, this deadline is February 2. As always, thank you for caring, for forwarding this to others you think may be interested, and for submitting your comments. 3,000 public comments in November really got the governments attention, and its still possible to do the same now with the Navy. Together we can do it. Let those comments pour in, and send copies to your elected representatives. Best wishes, Karen Sullivan THIS PART copied from Posts To Page on left: The other file referenced, by Chris Greacen, PhD, on the amount of CO2 produced by a Growler: CO2 emissions from an EA-18G Growler Ever wondered how much carbon dioxide is produced by one of those EA-18G Growlers Navy jets that have been roaring over Lopez? A friend asked me this question a couple days ago and I did the math. The results are shocking! (If you’re interested in the details, I put the calculations and links to all sources here: tiny.cc/growlerCO2). The average jet fuel consumption rate (based on typical operations patterns) of the EA-18G Growler is 1,304 gallons per hour. Combustion of jet fuel produces 9.57 kg CO2 per gallon. The CO2 produced is thus 9.57 kg * 1304 gal/hour = 12479 kg/hour or about 12.5 metric tons of CO2 per hour. The per capita emissions in Washington state in 2011 was 10.18 metric tons per year (including all residential, commercial and industrial activities), so one hour of flight is about 23% more than the annual CO2 emissions of a typical Washington state citizen. Another way of looking at it is to compare to CO2 emissions from a car. The typical passenger car found on US roads today (averaging old and new, inefficient and efficient) emits 0.423 kg CO2 per mile. Thus, one hour of a single EA-18G Growler flight is equivalent to driving a typical car 29,500 miles. That’s five round trip road trips from Anacortes to New York City with a bit left over for sightseeing. It’s also about an eighth of the distance between the earth and the moon. (In a Prius, you could do almost 13 round trips from Anacortes to New York City or a third of the distance to the moon). Or, we could compare one of these airplanes flying overhead to the number of cars driving simultaneously that would produce CO2 at the same rate as a single Growler flying overhead. Lets imagine a fleet of average US passenger cars all driving the Lopez maximum speed of 45 mph. A car going 45 mph makes 19.0 kg per hour of CO2 (45 mph* 0.423 kg CO2/mile). A single EA-18G Growler flying overhead makes as much CO2 as 656 average US cars driving at maximum speed on Lopez (12479/19.0). I’m upset about the increased noise of these jets, as are most folks I talk to. It turns out if you care about climate change, perhaps one of the most effective things you can do is encourage the Navy to get their soldiers out of the cockpit and into flight simulators (or better, encourage a demilitarized foreign policy). Please consider writing letters or calling Senators Murray, Cantwell, and Representative Rick Larsen. Written by: Chris Greacen, PhD Unlike · Reply · 2 · 9 hrs Karen Sullivan To answer Barbaras question, there has been no research on any impacts, whether cumulative or immediate. The Navy is assuming the public will take their word for it. Links to files referenced in this note: 1. An excellent guide on how to submit scoping comments, from the Quiet Skies Over San Juan County coalition: click on Word or PDF format here: quietskies.info 2. Health effects from jet noise: quietskies.info/#!learn-more/c17b1 3. EPA jet fuel emissions report: agriculturedefensecoalition.org/.../31_1_1999... 4. Fuel dumping narrative by a Navy pilot: public.navy.mil/.../FinchHSL49SH60B.doc 5. Navy fuel dumping guidelines: miramar-ems.marines.mil/.../Fuel%20Dumping.pdf
Posted on: Fri, 02 Jan 2015 18:24:19 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015