Sustainable Keys
by John Hammerstrom
Sustainable Keys
by John Hammerstrom
Following the October 31, 2013 signing of the Record of Decision (ROD) for the NAS Key West Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), the letter cited below was sent to the Navy. When a response is received, it will be published here. The investigative journalistic website TheBluePaper.com has also covered the subject. For documentation of issues discussed in the letter below, please consult the previous posting - “Record of Decision - The Fraud Persists.” JH
November 12, 2013
Mr. Ted Brown
Public Affairs Officer
United States Fleet Forces Command
1562 Mitscher Avenue, Suite 250
Norfolk, VA 23551-2487
Dear Mr. Brown,
The final step in a three-year process analyzing the potential impacts of introducing the F-35 to Naval Air Station Key West occurred on October 31, 2013, when Roger M. Natsuhara, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Energy, Installations & Environment) signed the Record of Decision (ROD) for the NAS Key West Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Three weeks earlier, officials from Monroe County and our Congressman, Representative Joe Garcia, met with the Navy to discuss several concerns.
One of our concerns, as expressed in the ROD, was that “…impacts associated with the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet were included in the FEIS baseline, notwithstanding the fact the impacts to the surrounding community were not properly evaluated in previous National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents. Including the Super Hornet has the effect of reducing the magnitude of [F-35] impacts…” In stark personal terms, according to FEIS data, that means that 2,416 people in the vicinity of NAS Key West have been living with the impacts of the Super Hornet (the baseline) for a decade without the benefit of the environmental impact assessment promised them by NEPA, and the F-35 introduction would “only” affect 366 more people.
That concern remains unresolved and I write here as an individual to elaborate on Monroe County’s statement that the “…impacts of the…Super Hornet…were not properly evaluated…” which conflicts with the Navy’s often-repeated assertion that the impacts were properly evaluated.
For example, the FEIS (Section 1.3.1, page 1.4) states that the 2003 Environmental Assessment (EA) for Fleet Support and Infrastructure Improvements at NAS Key West “…addressed the Navy’s transition from the F-14 Tomcat aircraft to the FA-18E/F Super Hornet…”
The Record of Decision is more expansive. “The 2003 Environmental Assessment (EA) for Fleet Support and Infrastructure Improvements at NAS Key West analyzed potential impacts to the human environment, including noise and flight paths resulting from all transient aircraft operations, including the F/A18E/F operations. As a result of that analysis, the DoN reached a Finding of No Significant Impact on April 14, 2003, which completed and satisfied the NEPA requirements associated with the introduction of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet at NAS Key West.”
As you may know, I have studied the EA and all of the related documents. I hope you will help me understand some perplexing issues.
1. I have been unable to find any record prior to 2007 in which the 2003 EA is mentioned in conjunction with the introduction of the Super Hornet at NAS Key West. Would you please identify the earliest public notice declaring that the 2003 Environmental Assessment would include an analysis of the impacts of the Super Hornet at NAS Key West?
2. NEPA documentation requires identification of a Proposed Action and a listing of Alternatives. If the 2003 EA satisfies the Navy’s NEPA obligations, why is there no mention of the Super Hornet in either the Proposed Action or the Alternatives?
3. The complete family of documents that constitute the entire NEPA record for this EA consists of more than 500 pages, from the “brief letter” of October 2, 2002, through the final document—the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)—signed April 14, 2003. The Super Hornet is only mentioned on three pages. Please explain how it is possible that three pages, or less than 1% of the documentation, constitutes a proper evaluation of the aircraft’s impacts?
4. The FONSI does not mention the Super Hornet. How is it possible for the FONSI to complete the NEPA requirements for analysis of the Super Hornet, when the aircraft is not mentioned?
5. A one-line reference, “Wyle Laboratories Draft Noise Study for Forecast CY07 Conditions at NAS Key West” is listed in the 2003 EA. A Freedom of Information Act request resulted in a PDF document on a CD. The Adobe Reader “document properties” for that Wyle Lab study indicates that the author was Jrachami, and the “creation date” was Apr 24, 2003. Please explain the apparent anachronism of this EA reference having been created ten days after the FONSI was signed.
6. A Freedom of Information Act request and an Appeal for a copy of the Draft 2003 EA (that preceded the Environmental Assessment itself) were both denied because a copy couldn’t be located, despite the facts that the document had been distributed to at least eleven public agencies and was the subject of a “diligent” search by then Commanding Officer of Naval Air Station Key West, Captain J.R. Brown; the Judge Advocate General of the Navy (Code 34); the Department of the Navy Office of General Counsel; the Assistant General Counsel (Installations and Environment) and the Chief of Naval Operations Environmental Readiness Division (N45). Curiously, Monroe County Commissioner Kim Wigington later requested a copy and was denied access with the statement, “Exemption (b)(5)…[protects] inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency.” Please state whether the Navy located a copy and please explain further the justification for exempting a public document.
7. Subsequent to the Navy’s inability to locate the Draft 2003 EA, I found and photocopied the public document. There is absolutely no mention of the Super Hornet in the Draft EA, and the EA’s “Wyle Lab” reference is absent. Please explain the incongruity of the Navy’s claim that they analyzed the Super Hornet in accordance with NEPA regulations, when the Draft EA is void of any reference to the aircraft.
Respectfully Submitted,
John G. Hammerstrom, Commander, USN (Ret.)
Cc: Congressman Joe Garcia
Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
Kim Wigington
Richard Grosso, Esq.
TheBluePaper.com
The U.S. Navy has issued the Record of Decision for the F-35 NAS Key West Operations. The problem is, they never evaluated the impacts of the louder (by their data) and earlier F/A-18E/F Super Hornet that is the reference point for the F-35. The Navy is cheating to achieve the best of both worlds - to entrench the unevaluated Super Hornet, and to assert the F-35 has minor impact by comparison.
U.S. Navy photo
November 20, 2013 - Following Record of Decision, Questions are asked
More Questions