The Navy has proposed to fly the F-35 at Naval Air Station (NAS) Key West and has released the NAS Key West Airfield Operations Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) to evaluate its impacts, as they are legally required to. Despite their claims, the Navy has not complied with the same obligations for the louder (according to their data) and earlier cousin of the F-35, the FA-18E/F “Super Hornet,” that is a benchmark for the F-35 study. The Navy’s assertion that a 2003 Environmental Assessment (EA) “…addressed the Navy’s transition from the F-14 Tomcat aircraft to the FA-18 E/F Super Hornet…” is false, as is clearly detailed below with hyperlinks to corroborating documents.

On page 16 of their October 31, 2013 Record of Decision, the Navy repeated the same lies with regard to the 2003 EA that were originally stated in 2007. Perhaps it is true that if you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. 

The FEIS (Section 6, Aircraft Noise Study for NAS Key West) clearly indicates the huge relative noise impacts of the FA-18E/F (see Figure 6-4 below), a fact reinforced by several other Navy documents showing the Super Hornet can be more than four times as loud as the F-14 aircraft it replaced (more than 20dB in some cases, according to Navy data), and yet the Navy claims that the introduction of the Super Hornet to Key West had “No Significant Impact.” 

Aircraft Noise Study for Naval Air Station Key West, Draft Final WR-12-13, January 2013 Section 6 - Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) Contributor Analysis

The Navy is cheating to compound their gains by building on a fraudulent base.

If allowed, the Navy would:

1. 1.Entrench the Super Hornet operations at NAS Key West by including that loud aircraft in the Baseline “No Action Alternative” of the F-35 aircraft EIS,
   

2. 2.Bestow on the Super Hornet an unearned patina of legal compliance by including it in the F-35 FEIS,
   

3. 3.Argue that the F-35 would cause “imperceptible to slight” impacts because it is compared to the louder Super Hornet, all of which would
   

4. 4.Rationalize the Super Hornet operations and justify the F-35 operations, both of which trivialize the Navy’s responsibility to mitigate the actual impacts on the affected citizens.
   

Details of the fraud and—maybe more importantly—the failure of oversight agencies to find wrongdoing, are documented below.

&&&&

On August 15, 2012, the Monroe County (Florida) Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to send a 12-page letter commenting on the “NAS Key West Airfield Operations Draft EIS.”

Comment one (of forty-one) reads as follows:

1. 1. “Revise the Baseline (No Action Alternative) to Exclude the FA-18E/F Super Hornet and Evaluate the Super Hornet as a Next Generation Aircraft in the Alternatives. Section 1.3.1 (page 1-4) [of the Draft EIS] states that the Environmental Assessment (EA) for Fleet Support and Infrastructure Improvements at NASKW (DoN 2003a) addressed the Navy’s transition from the F-14 Tomcat aircraft to the FA-18E/F Super Hornet. Despite this claim, there has been no adequate NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] evaluation done of the impacts associated with the introduction of F/A-18E/F Super Hornet to NASKW. The Navy has claimed that the 2003 Environmental Assessment for Fleet Support and Infrastructure Improvements and the April 14, 2003 Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) satisfies their obligations to evaluate the introduction of the Super Hornet to NASKW, despite the fact that there is no mention of the Super Hornet in any of the documents leading up to the Final EA, and no mention of the aircraft in the Proposed Actions, nor the Alternatives, nor in the FONSI. Among the 500+ pages of NEPA documentation surrounding that EA, the Super Hornet is mentioned in only three pages…There is one "reference" in the EA that discusses the Super Hornet. The creation date of that document was after the date of the FONSI.
   
   

2. “In the Navy’s 2003 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Introduction of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Aircraft to the East Coast of the United States, the impacts resulting from F/A-18E/F Super Hornet operations at NASKW were not discussed. The Navy has failed to fulfill its NEPA obligations by virtue of not having completed a thorough analysis of the impacts of the Super Hornet. This is very important, since according to the DEIS (Draft Aircraft Noise Study for NAS Key West - WR-12-13; June, 2012, page 61, Table 7-1), the Super Hornet is approximately twice as loud as the F-35 in the Non-Break Arrival, Touch and Go, FCLP and GCA Box patterns. [note to reader: a ten decibel increase is perceived as twice as loud, and a 20-decibel increase, four times as loud.] Since it has not been adequately evaluated in an EA or EIS, the impacts of the Super Hornet should be removed from the existing baseline / No Action Alternative, and added as an introduced next generation aircraft in Alternatives 1, 2, and 3…”
   

3. 
   

In response to the Monroe County Commission letter, a Key West Citizen newspaper article stated the Navy continues to maintain that “…its research met legal guidelines of the National Environmental Policy Act.” A September 30, 2012 Key West Citizen article continues the story.

In their FEIS, the Navy has replied to most comments submitted by Monroe County, other agencies and members of the public in Appendix B. Their position on the Super Hornet and the fraudulent baseline it represents in the F-35 impact study remains unchanged.

On August 21, 2013, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) unanimously authorized “…County Administrator, staff and K&S (consultant Keith & Schnars) to meet with senior Navy policy officials, the White House Council on Environmental Quality, White Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, members of the Florida congressional delegation and County lobbyist to discuss the County’s continuing concerns with the FEIS…” The discussion topics include a proper evaluation of the baseline condition as described in this BOCC agenda item.

Monroe County sent this letter to Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, dated August 22, 2013.

The subject was covered in the August 23 edition of the Airport Noise Report.

The Miami Herald described the issues and history in this article.

As reported to Monroe County by their consultant Michael L. Davis, “On October 3, 2013 Congressman Joe Garcia, Roman Gastesi (County Administrator), Bob Shillinger (County Attorney), Lisa Tennyson (Director Legislative Affairs and Grants Acquisition) and Mayte Santamaria (Assistant Director of Planning and Environmental Resources) [and Michael L. Davis (Vice President, Keith and Schnars, P.A.)] met in Washington, DC with the Honorable Dennis McGinn, Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Energy, Installations and Environment). The purpose of the meeting was to discuss Monroe County’s concerns with the Navy’s Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for operations at Naval Air Station Key West (NASKW).  This meeting was requested by the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners in an August 22, 2013 letter to the Secretary of the Navy.  The meeting was arranged with the help of Congressman Garcia and took place in his House office in the Longworth building.” The attached presentation was made. The effect of the meeting, while positive on the surface, remains to be seen.

&&&&

In 2007, as the number of Super Hornet flights and associated noise increased around Naval Air Station Key West, citizens asked questions of the Navy. The Navy responded that they had evaluated the local impacts of the louder aircraft in a 2003 “Environmental Assessment” (EA), and had issued a “Finding of No Significant Impact” (FONSI). While these documents were well known locally because their subject was proposed dredging of Key West Harbor, there is no record before 2007 of the Navy’s claim that the same 2003 EA and FONSI also applied to, and exonerated, the Super Hornet.

As you will read below, the Navy’s Super Hornet Environmental Assessment and FONSI claims are fraudulent and their malfeasance was compounded by withholding a critical “smoking gun” document. Since the first Super Hornet inquiries in 2007, the Navy has abused their authority, lied and stonewalled. More disturbing, despite clear facts, none of the government agencies charged with oversight of the Navy, nor the next level of overseers charged with scrutiny of the oversight agencies have found any wrongdoing.

In June 2012, the Navy released the “NAS Key West Airfield Operations Draft Environmental Impact Statement” (Draft EIS or DEIS), which states falsely that the 2003 EA “…addressed the Navy’s transition from the F-14 Tomcat aircraft to the FA-18E/F Super Hornet…” [DEIS, Section 1.3.1, page 1-4]. The same spurious statement is made in the Final EIS, on the same page.

It is illustrative to compare the Navy’s “by the book” F-35 impact documentation with the parallel but void documentation of its older, louder cousin, the Super Hornet.

The F-35 DEIS and FEIS were distributed widely and announced by public notices and meetings. The DEIS and FEIS detail the “Proposed Action” of flying the F-35 at NAS Key West, and describes “Alternatives,” which define different possible levels of flight operations and their associated impacts.

By contrast, there were no public notices announcing the introduction of the Super Hornet, nor was the aircraft referred to in the “Proposed Action” or the “Alternatives” of its claimed NEPA document. In fact—amazingly—the Draft of the EA that the Navy claims evaluates the Super Hornet (the equivalent of the F-35 Draft EIS) does not mention the airplane. Not once.

&&&&

Encroachment in the form of new land development near Naval Air Stations is rightfully resisted by Navy authorities. Those who knowingly build or buy a home within noise areas and then complain about the din have encroached and deserve little audience. However, when the Navy replaced the F-14 Tomcat with the Super Hornet, it was they who encroached on the community. Patriotic citizens in the vicinity of NAS Key West who dutifully bought homes outside of the published noise zones are currently living inside of noise zones because of a much-louder aircraft with a larger sonic footprint. Lying to the public adds insult to injury.

This commentator is a retired Naval Aviator who believes in and supports the mission of the U.S. Navy, having served over 25 years in defense of the U.S. Constitution as an enlisted machinist, aircraft-carrier based pilot and Aeronautical Engineering Duty Officer. The Navy has a vitally important mission, and an increasingly challenging training environment in which to prepare for it. They have the right and duty to accomplish that mission, but they do not have the right to break our nation’s laws in the process.

Below is the story with hyperlinks to corroborating documents, including the failure of numerous oversight organizations to take action in the face of blatant malfeasance, crowned by the Navy Inspector General’s liberally redacted March 23, 2011 self-exoneration.

The list of allegations has grown since the original complaint.

1. 1.The Navy fraudulently claims that the “April 2003 Environmental Assessment for Fleet Support and Infrastructure Improvements - Naval Air Station Key West” (2003 EA) satisfies their obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to "…assess environmental consequences of proposed actions that could affect the quality of the human environment…" for the introduction of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet to NAS Key West.
   

2. 2.The Navy fraudulently claims that the April, 14, 2003 "Finding of No Significant Impact" fulfilled their NEPA requirements regarding the Super Hornet.
   

3. 3.The Navy’s legal obligation to assess the environmental impacts of replacing the F-14s with the Super Hornets remains unfulfilled, and now the Navy is compounding the fraud in the FEIS by using the loud Super Hornet as a baseline and asserting the new F-35 impacts would not be so bad by comparison.
   

4. 4.In failing to deliver the “Pre-Release Environmental Assessment” (known also as the “Draft Environmental Assessment”) asked for in FOIA File Number DON 200800645-F, the Navy has attempted to withhold the “smoking gun” document that proves the 2003 EA was not intended to study the Super Hornet.
   

5. 5.Assistant Navy Secretary B.J. Penn has misrepresented the facts in his letter of December 12, 2007, making false and deceptive statements.
   

6. 6.The Department of Defense Office of Inspector General failed - twice - to find any wrongdoing.
   

7. 7.The Navy Office of Inspector General found no wrongdoing.
   

8. 8.The FBI failed to find any wrongdoing.
   

9. 9.Senator Bill Nelson found no wrongdoing.
   

10. 10.The General Accountability Office abdicated responsibility to the DODIG and then failed to review the matter despite clear evidence of fraud.
    

11. 11.The Council of the Inspectors General for Integrity and Efficiency failed - twice - to find any wrongdoing.
    

&&&&

Background: U.S. Federal law (32 CFR 775.3 and 775.4) states,

"The Department of the Navy shall assess environmental

consequences of proposed actions that could affect the quality

of the human environment in the United States, its territories,

and possessions in accordance with DOD and CEQ

regulations."

The F-14 Tomcat was replaced by the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet throughout the Navy, including Naval Air Station Key West. Department of the Navy documents indicate that the Super Hornet generates significantly greater noise than the Tomcat. In the “Approach” pattern when an aircraft is preparing to land, the Super Hornet is as much as 27 decibels louder than the Tomcat.1 That’s more than four times as loud. The Navy projected at NAS Key West there would be 25% more Super Hornet operations flown in 2007 compared to F-14 operations in 2001. 2 Clearly, a much louder airplane flying more operations would “…affect the quality of the human environment.” However, Navy officials as high as the Honorable B.J. Penn, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Installations and Environment, assert that the Navy is in compliance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), that a proper Environmental Assessment was accomplished and that the introduction of the Super Hornet to NAS Key West would have no significant impact. The facts clearly contradict the Navy’s assertions.

In a December, 2007 letter on this subject, Secretary Penn stated,

“In 2003, the Navy complied with NEPA for transient aircraft operations

at NAS Key West by completing the Environmental Assessment (EA)

for Fleet Support and Infrastructure Improvements.

That EA, and it incorporated references, analyzed impacts to the human environment, including noise and flight paths resulting from all

transient aircraft operations, including the F/A-18E/F.

As a result of that analysis, the Navy reached a

Finding of No Significant Impact which addressed

off-base noise exposure from aircraft

operating at NAS Key West.”

To comply with NEPA, Navy regulations 3 require a “brief letter” be sent to the Chief of Naval Operations (N45) announcing that they “propose an action,” and that they intend to initiate NEPA documentation. The “brief letter” that precipitated the 2003 Environmental Assessment referred to in Secretary Penn’s letter was sent by Captain L.S. Cotton, Commanding Officer, NAS Key West on  October 2, 2002.

There is no mention of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in the “brief letter.”

On October 4, 2002, Darrell Molzan, Environmental Planning Division Director of the Naval Facilities Engineering Command notified the Florida State Clearinghouse and the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) that the Proposed Action “…is a group of projects to provide improved or additional capability essential to support services for transient units at NAF Key West.”

There is no mention of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in the Florida Clearinghouse notice to Florida Department of Community Affairs.

In early 2003, the Navy distributed a “Pre-Release Environmental Assessment (EA)” to at least eleven public agencies for their comments on the “proposed action.” These agencies’ jobs were to evaluate the “action” for potential impacts and submit comments for inclusion in the Environmental Assessment document. The agencies that received the “Pre-Release” document include U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida Department of Transportation, South Florida Water Management District, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, United States Department of Commerce, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The 2003 Environmental Assessment includes letters from those eleven agencies and there is no mention of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in any of their comments.

On February 26, 2008 a Freedom of Information Act request to NAS Key West was made by this commentator for a copy of the Draft or “Pre-Release EA.” Captain J.R. Brown, Commanding Officer of NAS Key West replied, “Our search for records included files maintained by the Naval Air Station (NAS) Key West Business Office and the NAS Key West Environmental Department. However, despite this diligent search, we were unable to locate responsive documents.” The FOIA denial was appealed to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy (Code 34) on April 2, 2008. A Final Administrative Adjudication of that appeal was sent on November 7, 2008 letter from The Department of the Navy Office of General Counsel. In that letter, Deputy General Counsel Anne M. Brennan stated,

“…the Assistant to the General Counsel (FOIA) contacted the IDA [Initial Denying Agency - NAS Key West] regarding the search procedures undertaken to locate responsive documents and confirmed the adequacy of that department’s search procedures. My office also contacted the Assistant General Counsel (Installations and Environmental) who, in turn, contacted the Chief of Naval Operations Environmental Readiness Division (N45). Neither of these offices was able to locate a copy of the pre-release draft [EA].”

Subsequent to the Navy’s declaration that they could not find a copy of that document, this commentator found the document and photocopied relevant pages. These facts were also made known to the DOD Office of Inspector General, adding the question “Did the Navy destroy all of their copies of the document that could prove that the 2003 Environmental Assessment was never intended to evaluate the environmental impacts of the Super Hornet at NAS Key West?”

If the Navy intended for the 2003 Environmental Assessment to address the potential impacts of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, there would be discussion of the aircraft in the Draft document. This is the smoking gun that would expose malfeasance and the Navy could not find the document.

There is no mention of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in the pre-release draft EA.

Adding to the intrigue surrounding the Draft EA, in November, 2011, Monroe County Commissioner Kim Wigington asked the Navy for a copy of the document, which was denied. The FOIA Appeal (F12037) was also denied. Nevertheless, the Navy seems to have found the document, but claimed in their January 3, 2012 letter to Monroe County, “Exemption (b)(5)” which they said “…[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.”  How can a public document be exempted?

The final EA was published in April, 2003. The planned governmental activity—its Proposed Action—is “…to modernize ship and aircraft support functions and facilities at the Naval Air Station (NAS) Key West including Boca Chica and Truman Harbor.” The document details the potential environmental impacts of dredging and providing support facilities in the Key West area.

There is no mention of the Super Hornet in the EA Table of Contents, or the Proposed Action, or the Alternatives, and the aircraft is only mentioned briefly on three pages. That isolated, three-page section at the end of Chapter 4—Section 4.10—is curiously unrelated and unconnected to the remaining 229 pages of the EA, and more significantly, is totally absent in the Draft version of the document that would have informed the public and organizations interested in commenting on the proposed action.

Here, for comparison, is the Section 4.10 from the Pre-Release or Draft EA that does not mention the Super Hornet and the same Section 4.10 from the final EA, showing the lonely and irrelevant three pages that mention the Super Hornet.

Following an Environmental Assessment, NEPA regulations require the agency that has proposed the “action” to either fully evaluate the environmental impacts, by producing an “Environmental Impact Statement,” or—if they have determined that there will be no significant environmental impacts—to publish a “Finding of No Significant Impact” statement.

On April 14, 2003 (remember this date), T.R. Crabtree, Director, Shore Activities Readiness, U.S. Atlantic Fleet signed a “Finding of No Significant Impact” statement, or FONSI, stating that “Based on the information gathered during the preparation of the EA, the Navy finds that fleet support and infrastructure improvements as Naval Air Station (NAS), Key West, will not significantly impact the human environment.” This is the final step in the Navy’s claimed NEPA process.

Among all 500+ pages of NEPA documents generated over six months in preparing and publishing the 2003 EA and the subsequent Finding of No Significant Impact, the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is mentioned on only three pages. Put another way, 497 of the 500 pages of the claimed NEPA documentation have nothing to do with the Super Hornet.

Over 99% of the Navy’s claimed NEPA documentation has nothing to do with the Super Hornet

zero

nada

zip

Neither this commentator nor any of my community colleagues who have lived with this travesty and who originally initiated the inquiry with NAS Key West officials are aware of any document prior to 2007 in which the Navy connected the 2003 EA with their NEPA obligations to evaluate the environmental impacts of introducing the Super Hornet to Key West.

The glaring incongruity of the Navy claiming that they analyzed the impacts of the Super Hornet, when more than 99% of the claimed documentation makes no mention of the airplane, caused this writer to contact the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

The original complaint was lodged with the GAO on November 7, 2007. The GAO assigned Control Number 51428, and referred the matter to the Department of Defense, Office of Inspector General (DODIG), where Case Number 105900 was initiated.

As referred to earlier, Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations and Environmental) B.J. Penn was asked to explain the facts and the Navy’s claim of satisfying their NEPA requirements in a 2007 letter from environmental law professor Richard Grosso, General Counsel of the Everglades Law Center. Secretary Penn’s response deceptively stated that the Environmental Assessment “…and its references” satisfied the NEPA requirements.

There are several problems with Secretary Penn’s use of the “…and its references…” phrase. First, the term “references” should be singular, not plural. There is only one, single-line reference in a list of 160 references that has anything to do with airplanes—the Wyle Laboratories (April) 2003 Draft Aircraft Noise Study (see image from EA list of references below).

Second, this solitary Super-Hornet-related reference in the final EA is absent in the Draft EA, so neither the public nor the reporting agencies were aware of the Wyle study prior to the final EA itself, which explains the absence of any reference to the Super Hornet or the Wyle Lab study in the EA comments.

Third, if the Navy is basing their claimed compliance with NEPA on one reference not present in the Draft version and buried in the final version of an otherwise unrelated NEPA document, what’s to preclude using this ploy to satisfy a long list of NEPA documentation obligations in one EA? Using this logic, the Navy could issue a Draft EA for one benign “action,” add into the final EA a long directory of new references that pertain to other potential “actions,” issue a Finding of No Significant Impact statement, and then later claim that the EA and FONSI satisfy the NEPA obligations for the whole list of referenced “actions,” while completely avoiding the pesky public-comment process.

Fourth, and most concerning, it appears that this solitary reference was actually created after both the EA and the FONSI. In response to a FOIA request to Lt. Adrienne Gagliardo, NAS Key West FOIA Officer and to NAS Key West Public Affairs Officer James Brooks, the Draft Aircraft Noise Study was delivered to this commentator by the Navy on a CD. Missing from the document were the title page, which presumably would have the date of publication, and any other pages prior to the Table of Contents. Nevertheless the header on each page shows “April 2003.” A publication date of April, 2003 means that it was not available when the Draft EA was released. Most damning, the Adobe Reader “document properties” indicate this lonely reference was created on April 24, 2003, by “jrachami” (presumably Jawad Rachami, an engineer with the Wyle Acoustic Group), ten days after the April 14, 2003 Finding of No Significant Impact was signed!

Below is a screenshot showing the April 24, 2003 creation date of the Wyle Laboratories “Draft Aircraft Noise Study for Forecast CY07 Conditions at NAS Key West.”

Setting aside the incriminating anachronism of a reference showing up in a version of the EA more than 10 days before it was created, is the Navy claiming that the contents of this lone reference, a document completely unrelated to the rest of the EA, a single reference in a list of 160 references, validates the Environmental Assessment and satisfies their NEPA obligations?

At the very least, the fact that this reference is not present in the Draft EA confirms that the Navy never intended for this NEPA process to involve the Super Hornet. 

It is noteworthy that Mr. Rachami is also the Principal-In-Charge of the January 2013 F-35 FEIS NAS Key West Noise Study, ten years later.

Although there are no documents to corroborate this (but the search continues), anecdotal reports from several eyewitnesses are that the Key West Library copy of the original final 2003 EA—which dealt with dredging and other unrelated issues to—had neither the three-page mention of the Super Hornet in Section 4.10 nor the Wyle Lab reference. Those eyewitnesses claim that some time in 2007, the earlier version was replaced with the current version, which includes both Section 4.10 and the Wyle Lab citation.

The most outrageous possibility is that the one-line reference and the three-page Section 4.10 were inserted in a second printing of the final Environmental Assessment and the original EA and Draft EA copies in their possession were destroyed.

The only Super Hornet “reference” in the final EA was created after the Finding of No Significant Impact was signed and is absent in the Draft EA!

&&&&

In July, 2003, three months after the EA in question was published, the Navy published a completely different study, the “Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Introduction of the F/A-18E/F (Super Hornet) Aircraft to the East Coast of the United States,” to address the environmental impacts of replacing the F-14 with the F/A-18E/F.

The FEIS Abstract reads, “This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) evaluates the potential environmental consequences of the Department of the Navy’s (the Navy’s) proposed action to provide facilities and functions to support the homebasing and operation of the new F/A-18E/F (Super Hornet) aircraft. These aircraft are planned for assignment to the Atlantic Fleet to replace the F-14 (Tomcat) and earlier model F/A-18C/D (Hornet) aircraft…”

Surprisingly, that FEIS did not include the environmental impacts on NAS Key West, even though NAS Key West is one of the most important East Coast airfields and the Navy planned more Super Hornet operations at NAS Key West than some of the airfields that were included in the FEIS.

In January, 2008, Senator Bill Nelson held a “Town Hall” meeting in Key West, where he was shown this linked PowerPoint presentation. He found no wrongdoing.

In August, 2009, DODIG released their final report for Case 105900, finding no wrongdoing.

Later that month, another letter was written to GAO, explaining that the original issues had not been addressed, and that there were even more serious issues resulting from the Navy’s stonewalling.

In September, 2009, a letter was written to the FBI explaining the fraud. No response was received from the FBI.

The Council of the Inspectors General for Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) is supposed to oversee all of the Inspectors General. A letter outlining the serious issues that were dismissed by DODIG was sent to Mr. Mark Jones, Acting Executive Director of CIGIE on September 29, 2009.

Mr. Kevin L. Perkins, Chair of the Integrity Committee (IC) of CIGIE stated in a letter dated October 28, 2009, “The IC concluded that the actions by the OIG (Department of Defense Office of Inspector General) properly fell within the discretion of an IG and consequently did not meet the threshold standard for further consideration of the complaint. Accordingly, the IC will take no further action and directed that this complaint be closed.”  Thus, Mr. Perkins referred the matter back to the accused IG office, despite the fact that the purpose of his committee is “…to review allegations of wrongdoing received against an IG…”.

Since the matter was referred back to the DOD Inspector General, a letter was written to Mr. Gordon Heddell, DOD Inspector General, in hopes that the original transgressions as well as the new, subsequent malfeasance would be investigated. He created a new Case number - 113851. To be certain that Mr. Heddell was aware of the growing number of lies associated with this issue, a letter was sent to him on January 21, 2010 updating the expanding list.

Not surprisingly, the DODIG again found no wrongdoing in the report dated October 29, 2010.

Another letter was sent to Mr. Mark Jones, Executive Director, CIGIE on November 13, 2010 arguing that it was folly for him to ask DODIG to investigate themselves. In his reply, Mr. Jones stated that “…based on available information the DOD IG was not precluded from conducting a further objective review of the matters you allege.”

The final report from the Navy Inspector General is dated March 23, 2011, in which Mark A. O’Brien, Assistant Counsel found no malfeasance, but did provide some much-needed comic relief with the extensive redacting.

Unanswered Questions

1. ✦There is no record prior to 2007 of any connection between the 2003 Environmental Assessment and the evaluation of Super Hornet impacts at NAS Key West. On what date and in which specific document did the Navy first notify the public that the 2003 Environmental Assessment was intended to fulfill NEPA documentation for the introduction of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet to NAS Key West?
   

1. ✦The Super Hornet is not mentioned in any NEPA document that preceded the April 2003 final Environmental Assessment. How does the Navy reconcile their claim that this NEPA process “…addressed the Navy’s transition from the F-14 Tomcat aircraft to the FA-18E/F Super Hornet…” with the fact that all of the antecedent documents are completely unrelated to that subject?
   

1. ✦NEPA Environmental Assessment documentation requires identification of a Proposed Action and a listing of Alternatives. If the 2003 EA satisfies the Navy’s NEPA obligations with regard to introduction of the Super Hornet to Key West, why is there no mention of the Super Hornet in either the Proposed Action or the Alternatives?
   

1. ✦The complete family of documents that constitute the entire NEPA record for this Environmental Assessment, from the “brief letter” of October 2, 2002, through the FONSI of April 14, 2003 consists of more than 500 pages. How can the Navy claim, with a straight face, that this NEPA process pertains to and exonerates the Super Hornet, when the airplane is mentioned on only three of those pages?
   

1. ✦How is it possible that a much louder new airplane, flying 25% more operations, would have “no significant impact?”
   

1. ✦How does the Navy explain their claim that the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) exonerates the Super Hornet, when it does not mention the airplane?
   

1. ✦How is it possible that replacing the F-14 Tomcat with the Super Hornet at NAS Key West would cause “no significant impact,” when the same proposed action elsewhere was found to deliver significant impacts, precipitating a 1,087-page FEIS?
   

1. ✦How is it possible that a “diligent” search by the U.S. Navy, including the 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) failed to locate the incriminating and widely distributed Pre-Release (or Draft) Environmental Assessment, but—acting alone—the author of this commentary did?
   

1. ✦Who was responsible for placing the unrelated and orphaned three-page Section 4.10 in the 2003 EA and when was it added?
   

1. ✦When was the one-line “Wyle Laboratories” citation inserted in the EA and by whose direction?
   

1. ✦Is the Navy claiming that the contents of the Wyle Lab study, a separate document unrelated to the EA purpose, identified only by a single, one-line citation among 160 references but not referred to anywhere within the EA body and not present in the Draft EA, validates that EA and satisfies their NEPA obligations?
   

1. ✦Why is the “Wyle Laboratories” reference missing from the Draft EA?
   

1. ✦How is it possible that the EA has a reference to a document that was created well after the EA was published and ten days after the subsequent FONSI was signed?
   

1. ✦Is Assistant Secretary Penn’s use of the term “transient aircraft” meant to exonerate the Super Hornet by implying that aircraft flying at NAS Key West somehow make less noise if their permanent parking place is somewhere else?
   

1. ✦How is it possible that none of these “watchdog” agencies found anything wrong? Did they simply believe statements from the Assistant Secretary of the Navy without questioning?
   

The Government Accountability Office

The Department of Defense Office of Inspector General

The Navy Inspector General

The FBI

The Office of Senator Bill Nelson

The Council of the Inspectors General for Integrity and Efficiency

1 FEIS for the Introduction of the F/A-18E/F (Super Hornet) Aircraft to the East Coast of the United States, July, 2003, page 4-45, comparing F-14B/D to F/A-18E/F in “Approach” configuration.

2 Environmental Assessment for Fleet Support and Infrastructure Improvements, Naval Air Station Key West, April, 2003, Table 4-3, p. 116, comparing F-14 CY01 Operations with projected F/A-18E/F CY07 Operations.

3 In 2003, OPNAVINST 5090.1b was in effect.

&&&&

JH