474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 10 Posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4266 times:
According to the following article the Navy has to file an Environmental Impact Study with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) before they can deploy the F-35C at their West Coast bases. Have we really go so far with this "protect the environment" stuff that we have some bureaucrat at the EPA have the final say if the military can actually use the weapons they have purchased? What happens if the EPA comes back and says the F-35C will disrupt the matting habits of some rear field mouse or that its engines could suck in an endangered butterfly?
waketurbulence From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1288 posts, RR: 18 Reply 1, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 4168 times:
Do you really think it is such a limited scope? Just because it says 'Environmental' doesn't mean they are talking about tree huggers. Having a large fleet deployed to either El Centro or Lemoore can effect the overall environment in terms of traffic from base personnel, noise, pollution, hazardous materials and removal, and yes even animal mating habits. Standard procedure and important for people who live near the base and help support the people working there.
-Matt
11Bravo From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1648 posts, RR: 11 Reply 2, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 3981 times:
Quoting 474218 (Thread starter): According to the following article the Navy has to file an Environmental Impact Study with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) before they can deploy the F-35C at their West Coast bases.
Actually they may, or may not, have to produce an EIS depending on the scope of the project. What they do have to do is comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). That compliance is satisfied through one of three processes; an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), an Environmental Assessment (EA), or a Categorical Exclusion (CE). You seem to be under the impression this is something new. A NEPA compliance requirement for any and all Federal Projects has been in effect for more than 40 years.
Quoting 474218 (Thread starter): What happens if the EPA comes back and says the F-35C will disrupt the matting habits of some rear field mouse or that its engines could suck in an endangered butterfly?
The EPA does not decide such matters. The US Fish and Wildlife Service would be the appropriate agency to deal with those issues.
It seems pretty obvious that you know very little about this process, and that you are using this as an opportunity to go on an anti-environment political rant. It is amusing to me that people have such deeply held opinions about subjects that they know almost nothing about.
Quoting 474218 (Thread starter): Have we really go so far with this "protect the environment" stuff that we have some bureaucrat at the EPA have the final say if the military can actually use the weapons they have purchased?
No. This is the sort of statement I'm talking about. You have come to a conclusion without any basis in fact. You have gone of the deep-end. If you're going to get all freaked out about stuff like this, do yourself a favor and learn something about the subject first.
474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 10 Reply 3, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 3944 times:
So from the responses of waketurbulence and 11Brovo: I guess we have "gone that crazy" and are going to let an EPA or US Fish and Wildlife Service (Department of the Interior?) bureaucrat have the final say where the US Navy can base their newest aircraft!!!
I am sure glad that people whom think like these two were not around during WWII. Can you see the EPA or the US Fish and Wildlife Service signing off on a Environmental Impact Study for the A-Bomb test in Alamogordo, New Mexico?
rfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 6150 posts, RR: 25 Reply 4, posted (2 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 3912 times:
The majority of an EIS is things like safe disposal of hazardous chemicals from the aircraft maintenance, etc.
Not migratory birds or insects. Those have been covered in past EIS for the base. Much of the EIS will be updates of the old data and anything 'new' that the new aircraft brings into the base environment.
Sailors don't like their families living in toxic cesspools anymore than tree huggers do.
waketurbulence From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1288 posts, RR: 18 Reply 5, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3823 times:
Are you really seriously thinking that an EIS will stop the F-35 (or any multi-billion $ government project) from being located where the government wants it located? The study will have a minimal impact if at all.
That said, it is good for the community to be apprised of these things, which is what the EIS does. Let me put it this way.....since you're so happy to let the government do anything and everything I propose they put up a nuclear power plant next to your house without doing an EIS or even telling you about it. It keeps it out of my backyard, and you won't complain about it at all.
-Matt
11Bravo From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1648 posts, RR: 11 Reply 6, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 3804 times:
Quoting 474218 (Reply 3): So from the responses of waketurbulence and 11Brovo: I guess we have "gone that crazy" and are going to let an EPA or US Fish and Wildlife Service (Department of the Interior?) bureaucrat have the final say where the US Navy can base their newest aircraft!!!
That just isn't the case. Your statement is a falsehood
474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 10 Reply 7, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3772 times:
Quoting waketurbulence (Reply 5): Are you really seriously thinking that an EIS will stop the F-35 (or any multi-billion $ government project) from being located where the government wants it located? The study will have a minimal impact if at all.
Then why waste the "taxpayers money" doing a study that will be disregarded no matter what the outcome.
Then this is just another example of "governments out of control spending".
TGIF From Sweden, joined Apr 2008, 273 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3714 times:
Quoting 474218 (Reply 7): Then why waste the "taxpayers money" doing a study that will be disregarded no matter what the outcome.
Who said it will be disregarded?
You have to understand that there are other options as the outcome than the two you're thinking of, Yes to F-35C or No to F-35C. The study might show that there will be an increase of waste X and Y, and this must be handled using procedures A and B. Or it might come to the conclusion that the noise pollution from aircrafts landing and taking off using the current pattern is unacceptable and that new patterns, holding points etc must be introduced.
The result from the study may not be just black or white.
It may seem crazy when you put it as you do, but as someone who is an acquisitions officer with the Air Force (and on the F-35 program for that matter), I can tell you that "Environmental Impact" is now part of every acquisition program we undertake. We have to consider environmental impacts procurement and disposal, the environmental impact during operations, hazardous material that could leak into and affect the environment if one crashed, and many other factors. The study will also investigate alternative options, if any, and whether or not to do anything about the described potential impacts.
txjim From United States of America, joined May 2008, 197 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3147 times:
Just to add to the conversation, one must remember a couple things. First, not all of the EPA staff are headline-seeking tree-huggers. My wife works for the Emergency Response branch and, among other things, was responsible for the group that located and and was prepared to decontaminate Shuttle debris in East Texas. I've seen a couple of sites her group worked on and, believe me, you want an agency available to handle this sort of thing unless your state's agency is really on the ball (some are, some are not).
Second, Military bases have areas that are among the most contaminated places in the US and many decommissioned bases require a great deal of expensive cleanup to return to civilian use. FlyDeltaJets87 has better information than I do but it does make sense to try keep things in check now rather than have to apply a very expensive correction in the future.
The impact statement is probably something that states that the base has appropriate spill response and methods of containing waste fluids.
11Bravo From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1648 posts, RR: 11 Reply 11, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3123 times:
Quoting txjim (Reply 10): The impact statement is probably something that states that the base has appropriate spill response and methods of containing waste fluids.
I would also add that an EIS considers and evaluates a number of factors that most people are unaware of. A typical EIS must consider the following subjects in detail:
Impacts to T&E Species
Air/Water Quality Impacts
Impacts to Historic and Cultural Sites
Social and Economic Impacts to Local Communities
Detailed Cost Analysis for Each Alternative
Many people who get all spun-up about the NEPA process simply do not understand its purpose or the process. It's one of those many things in life that is complex and doesn't lend itself to simplistic black/white thinking.
KingairTA From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 445 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (2 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3097 times:
When my squadron of C-130s moved from Moffett FAF to Pt. Mugu we had to do an EIS. Nevermind the fact we were taking over VXE-6s old spaces who also used C-130s.
wvsuperhornet From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 516 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2318 times:
canoecarrier From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2657 posts, RR: 12 Reply 14, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2301 times:
Quoting 474218 (Reply 7): Then why waste the "taxpayers money" doing a study that will be disregarded no matter what the outcome.
Then this is just another example of "governments out of control spending".
It's a major federal action, therefore it has to comply with NEPA. NEPA's been around since 1970, this isn't new. I could just rehash all that 11Bravo has said, but he knows what he's talking about so I'd listen to him. Take a look at the Federal Register NEPA is done on everything from expansions of naval facilities, high speed rail, solar energy projects, to....airport improvement projects.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Apr 2008, 273 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
