Ventana Wilderness Alliance
Protecting the Northern Santa Lucia

Fort Hunter Liggett
Environmental Vigilance

PROPOSAL

The United State Navy has proposed the development of an air-to-ground practice bombing range in upper Stony Valley on the Fort Hunter Liggett military base (FHL) in southern Monterey county. According to the proposal, up to 3,000 bombing "sorties" will be conducted each year by F/A-18 Hornet fighter jets originating from Lemoore Naval Air Station near Fresno as well as from offshore aircraft carriers. These supersonic jets will approach and exit the target area at altitudes as low as 500 feet, and will drop only practice, non-explosive bombs. The Navy claims that the proposal will save them money by reducing fuel costs and will allow for more effective training of their pilots.

THE NUMBERS, CRUNCHED

1. Each year there will be approximately 940 "Missions" of one to four jets each originating from Lemoore Naval Air Station near Fresno, with the Navy using the figure 3 as a logical average to run their numbers. Additionally, there will be 135 jets originating from offshore aircraft carriers, bringing the total number of jets per year accessing the proposed target range to 2,955.
2. The Navy plans to make four (4) "missions" per day (consisting of the average three (3) jets per mission) with each mission spending between 30 to 40 minutes within FHL taking runs at the target. These missions are planned to be flown five (5) days a week, forty seven (47) weeks per year, day-in and day-out, with the exception of Holidays and foul weather. 20% of the missions will be flown at night.
3. FHL is approximately 100 miles closer to NAS Lemoore than the Nevada bomb practice sites currently being used. The fuel saved in transit will allow the Navy to increase the number of "runs at the target" while over FHL from 4-6 up to 8-12 and still have enough fuel to get back to base. There will be no net "savings" on fuel costs, but since they won't burn as much fuel getting to and from FHL as they currently do at the other target areas, they'll have more time in the air to make bombing runs at the proposed target.
4. Therefore, there could be over THIRTY THOUSAND (30,000) "runs by attack jets at the target" per year: 4 missions/day x 3 jets per mission = 12 sorties per day, x 8 to 12 runs each = 96 to 144 bombing runs at target per day, x 5 days per week = 480 to 720 bombing runs at target per week, x 47 weeks = 22,560 to 33,840 bombing runs per year.
5. Viewing the actual training tapes taken by the Navy in June 2000 at the FHL proposed bombing range, it could be seen that the jets will be visible approximately 75% of the time they are circling the range and running at the target, as they will be mostly at altitudes of 3,200 feet to 8,700 feet. This would make them visible from Lakes Nacimiento and San Antonio, as the foothills between them are only about 1,800 feet. Furthermore, they would be clearly visible (and audible!) from the Coast Ridge Trail and many other areas of the Ventana Wilderness as the coast ridge is about 3,000 to 3,700 feet.
6. The person in charge of "measuring and modeling noise levels" for the Navy, when asked, admitted that the F/A-18 Hornet puts out noise at 110 to 116 decibels at its normal cruising speeds between 300 MPH and 500 MPH (about 55% to 80% of Mach 1 depending on altitude). When queried further, he admitted that when climbing out of the target area after dropping their dummy bombs, with the "thrusters" kicked in, these jets put out an incredibly loud 150+ decibels.

SCOPING COMMENTS NEEDED

At this early stage of the proposal, called the scoping period, the Navy must accept input from the public in the form of written comments with regard to specific items and areas of concern that could potentially be impacted by the bombing proposal. According to law (the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA), each of the comments received by the Navy must then be addressed and included in the environmental analysis (EA) prepared for the proposal, the final version of which will dictate whether or not the bombing range is approved for construction and subsequent use. What is of utmost importance at this point in the process is that all potential negative impacts be brought to the attention of the Navy so that they will be considered and addressed in the EA. If a potential impact isn't submitted during the scoping period, it cannot be brought up later on, no matter how serious. These comments are due by March 2nd, 2001, so please read the project background information provided by the Navy and reprinted below, then think long and hard about what impacts might occur and what issues need to be addressed by the Navy as they study the potential for environmental degradation inherent to this proposal.

If the words of the Base Commander of Fort Hunter Liggett are any indication of how myopically the Department of Defense is approaching this issue, then public scoping comments are urgently needed. Lt. Col. Stephen M. Ackman was quoted by the San Jose Mercury News on 11-JAN-01 as saying:

"The question will be, can we accommodate this? Do we have the space? Can we accommodate the target location, which is something on the order of 10 acres? The answer from our perspective would generally be yes. But the Navy needs to do an environmental assessment."

With all due respect to Lt. Col. Ackman, the question at hand is much broader and larger and the potential impacts much greater than what would take place on the 10 acres of turf in Stony Valley where the target will be set up, important as that may be. The task before us now is to bring to the attention of the Navy all of the potential impacts of the proposal, including those caused by the supersonic jets as they approach and exit the target area. For the purpose of compiling your scoping comments, consider everyplace within earshot of these supersonic jets as part of the proposal area, including but not limited to the Ventana Wilderness, the Silver Peak Wilderness, other parts of the Los Padres National Forest, BLM lands, and adjacent and nearby private lands.

The most effective comment letters are those that are written in your own words. They don't have to be typed, they don't have to be lengthy, and they don't have to be eloquent-they just have to state what it is that matters to YOU about the proposal. If you oppose this proposal, clearly state your opposition at the beginning of your letter. Of equal importance is to demand that the Navy conduct a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as well as hold public hearings on the proposal.

In writing your letter, first ponder the following questions and make a few notes, then put it all down on paper or into an email message:

• How will the proposal effect local landowners and residents?
• Will the proposal cause adverse or beneficial effects on the local and regional level?
• Does it have the potential to harm or benefit public health or safety?
• Will historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, designated wilderness areas or ecologically critical areas be harmed or benefited?
• Will it harm or benefit the human environment?
• Will it provide a negative or positive precedent for future proposals or actions in the area?
• Will it lead to a number of other proposals or actions that may be small or temporary in scope but that could present an adverse or beneficial impact?
• Will it harm or benefit districts, sites, highways, structures or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places? Will it harm or benefit significant scientific, cultural or historical resources?
• Will it harm or benefit endangered or threatened species, or habitats that have been determined critical to them under the Endangered Species Act of 1973? What potential effects will the proposal have on the California condor?
• Will it trigger a violation of federal, state or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment?

WHERE TO SEND COMMENTS Note New Addresses!

When you've composed your scoping comments, you may submit them to the Navy by one of three methods. Please remember that comments must be received by the Navy by the March 2, 2001 deadline. Note that the Navy has changed the place where comments are to be sent. If you've recently submitted comments to the prior person in charge - Larry Jones in Fallon, Nevada - it might be a good idea to re-send them to the address below just to be sure they make it through.

By Email:
Perhaps the easiest way to get your comments on record is to send them in via email to FHLcomments@efawest.navfac.navy.mil. If you choose this method, please take a few simple precautions to safeguard your voice in the process:

1. Include the words "NEPA SCOPING COMMENTS -- FHL BOMBING PROPOSAL" in the subject line of your message as well as at the top of the body of the message.
2. Include at the end of your message, IN ALL CAPS, a request that a response be returned to you via email acknowledging receipt of your comments.
3. CC your message to bombfile@ventanawild.org, and we'll keep it in our files as proof of your submission should you need it at a later date.

By USPS:
If you choose to submit a hard copy of your comments, send them Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested. This will cost a couple of bucks, but it gives solid proof that your letter was indeed received should your comments not be addressed in the EA. Also, be sure to print the line "NEPA SCOPING COMMENTS -- FHL BOMBING PROPOSAL" both on the outside of the envelope as well as at the top of the letter.

By FAX:
If you choose to submit your comments via FAX, we strongly suggest that you include a request for a faxed reply acknowledging receipt. Also, be sure to print the line "NEPA SCOPING COMMENTS -- FHL BOMBING PROPOSAL" at the top of your letter to be faxed.

Where to send your comments by March 2, 2001

Mr. Sam Dennis
900 Commodore Drive
Engineering Field Activity West
San Bruno, CA 94066-5006
Telephone: (650) 244-2707
FAX: (650) 244-3010
email: FHLcomments@efawest.navfac.navy.mil

BACKGROUND INFORMATION FROM THE NAVY