URGENT: Olympic Nat'l Forest at risk from USN "Electronic Warfare Range" PLEASE COMMENT as

Here are two informative articles on this from the Peninsula Daily News. Post comments on the most recent one below:

http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/article/20140928/NEWS/309289934/no-people-large-animals-to-be-harmed-in-electronic-warfare-training

http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/article/20140927/NEWS/309279992/for-war-games-next-year-navy-wants-to-post-trucks-with

===========

PLUS here is a good comment letter:

---
comments-pacificnorthwest-olympic-pacific [at] fs.fed.us

email comments to above address as pdf (or .RTF or .DOC)
subject line must be: Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment (EA)

----
October 7, 2014

RE: Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment (EA)

To: Greg Wahl & To Whom it may concern:

I object to the proposed U.S. Navy war games, training or testing of Electronic Warfare in the Pacific Northwest. I have many relatives who live in both regions (Olympic Peninsula and North Omak/ Oroville areas) and will be subjected to unknown harm from this “training” activity. Significant numbers of people are electronically sensitive and cannot tolerate even small exposures to electromagnetic frequencies. There is no reason to assume that no harm will be done to humans or the environment. What harm might be done to children, small mammals and other wild life? Your motto “Caring for the land and serving the people “ would be better followed if you would invoke the internationally respected precautionary principle:

"When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof. The process of applying the precautionary principle must be open, informed and democratic and must include potentially affected parties. It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action." - Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle, Jan. 1998

Please extend the comment period. Have the people in the affected areas received adequate notification? Where and when was it posted? October 10, 2014 seems unreasonably short time for people in affected areas to respond.

These forest lands belong to the PEOPLE, all the people of these United States. Protect us, do not be a rubber stamp for military operations with unknown consequences.

Thank you,

You all are quite obtuse. The Navy has been flying aircraft in the exact location for 50 years. It's called the Olympic A/B Military Operations Area and Warning Area 237 (W-237). This isn't a change or new war-game. All they are doing is placing updated emitters to reflect 21st century EW threats in the range. It's like a cell phone tower, but a lot smaller (in the back of a camper truck). The Navy already trains Growler aircrew there day and night using 1970s emitters. The Olympic MOA is the #1 training range in Washington and represents 70% of Growler flight operations. Look at any aviation sectional chart and you will see the airspace clearly depicted. THERE IS NOTHING NEW HAPPENING! F-15s from Portland and EA-18G from NAS Whidbey Island use the range every single day and night. THIS IS NOT NEW. It's simply an upgrade to already existing facilities.

This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to analyze potential environmental impacts relevant to the proposed installation and operation of an Electronic Warfare (EW) Range in the Pacific Northwest (PNW). The purpose of the Proposed Action is to sustain and enhance the level and type of EW training currently being conducted by Navy assets using the Northwest Training Range Complex (NWTRC), to provide the ability to accommodate growth in future training requirements, and to maximize the ability of local units to achieve their training requirements on local ranges.

Three alternatives have been analyzed in this EA [Alternative 2 was chosen]:

• Under the No Action Alternative, very limited EW training, without the enhanced capability of fixed and mobile emitters, would continue to be conducted in the NWTRC; and intermediate-level EW training for certification would continue to occur at the Mountain Home Air Force Base approximately 400 nautical miles southeast of Naval Air Station Whidbey Island (NASWI).

• Alternative 1 includes:
• Installation and operation of a Mission Control and Debrief Center in an existing facility at NASWI
• Installation and operation of a fixed emitter at Naval Station Everett Annex Pacific Beach, to include renovation of Building 104
• Installation and operation of communication equipment [transmitter] on an existing tower in the Olympic Military Operations Area (MOA) at Octopus Mountain
• Operation of Mobile Electronic Warfare Training System (MEWTS) vehicle-mounted emitters in the Olympic Peninsula on U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and Washington State Department of Natural Resources lands to facilitate training in the Olympic MOA and Warning Area 237

• Alternative 2 includes all elements of Alternative 1 plus operation of MEWTS vehicle-mounted emitters on USFS lands to facilitate training within the Okanogan and Roosevelt MOAs.

recent comments to article,
"FOR WAR GAMES NEXT YEAR, NAVY WANTS TO POST TRUCKS WITH ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION EQUIPMENT ON WEST END"

http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/article/20140927/NEWS/309279992


Garrett Newkirk · Top Commenter
its funny the NAVY did not put this in any papers here on Whidbey island.

the NAVY / NASWI is already waging WAR on the civilian population of Whidbey island, San Juan islands with the EA-18G NOISE OF 140+ DB and horrendous CANCER causing pollution and the huge danger of a military aircraft crashing in to family homes and business.

the NAVY keeps saying their activities have zero impact on the environment, that is false, they have driven the tourism off Whidbey island with this EA-18G danger to the health and public safety of the civilian population.

Everyone knows radiation harms people only the NAVY would say it's speculative.

· Yesterday at 3:59pm

---

Pat MacRobbie · Retired
Warfare games in the Olympic Mountain National ParK? Electromagnetic radiation? No significant hazard? No need for an environmental assessment? Only a few (15 camper sized) trucks plus Whidbey Naval aircraft involved? Still no need for an environmental assessment? WOW!

· 3 · October 2 at 12:49pm

--

Mari Milanoski · Top Commenter · Retired

Just wait until Growlers come to the area. They emit earsplitting noise at 140 decibels burning 1,300 gallons of toxic jet fuel every hour. Citizens on Whidbey Island have been enraged with Growlers they do not belong where there is population. They fly low over our homes just above the tree level. They are a menace to health and the ecosystem.

The U. S. Navy can't be trusted in this land grab. They will weasel out of any legitimate surveys for hazards.

· 10 hours ago

The military needs to be cut back, not allowed to get a bigger foothold. What the Navy wants to do is to set up "local ranges" for their "exercises" so they do not have to fly from Whidbey Island air base to Nevada (where they have destroyed the area around Fallon NV with pollution from the Fallon Training Range Complex "the biggest training range in the world"). We do not want this kind of culture expanding into the precious Olympic Peninsula. NV is not _that_ far for those fighter jets.

Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 20:30:52 GMT
Subject: Comment period extended, Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment, change Update

The comment period has been extended to October 31. Please send this information and the previous information to anyone who lives or travels in Washington state as well as those who care about the environment and peace.

As stated below, there will be an information night next week with information from the Navy and Forest Service. It would be great to have people there presenting information on the RF hazard.

Please reach out to area organizations including peace and environmental groups, and state and federal officials on the Olympic Peninsula and in Washington State. The Internet is a great tool if we use it.

Please note: forwarded message attached

From: "USDA Forest Service"
Subject: USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment, change Update
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 14:59:25 -0500

You are subscribed to Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment, change for USDA Forest Service. This information has recently been updated, and is now available.

Electronic-Warfare-EA-public-comment-extension-final-signed-Public-Interested-8Oct14.doc.pdf
OlympicNFNewsRelease-EW-EA-8oct13-extending-comment-period.doc

We have received your comments on the Electronic Warfare Environmental Assessment. We appreciate your input during this process and ensure you that your comments will be considered and evaluated.

The Responsible Official, after receiving renewed interest in the Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment by members of the public who were unaware of the proposal, has decided to extend the current public comment. The current comment period was to end October 10, 2014. To ensure the public has had plenty of time to provide comment, the Responsible Official has extended the comment period to October 31, 2014. If you have already provided comments on this project, you do not need to comment again with the same information you’ve already provided.


In addition to extending the comment period, the Forks Chamber of Commerce is hosting Navy and US Forest staff for a question and answer session on Tuesday, October 14th from 6-8pm in Forks, WA. The location for this event is the Forks High School commons, located at 261 South Spartan Avenue, Forks, WA.

now 1,065 signatures on the petition!

But remember, the petition does not substitute for sending in a public comment. Email may be the best way (to:
comments-pacificnorthwest-olympic-pacific@fs.fed.us following instructions above re subject line). I know I have witnessed a comment being submitted via the Forest Service web-form (on 10/7) and it never did show up in the "Public Reading Room." Things seem to be screwed up, and I hope it is not intentional.

Rain forest testing
Please do not grant the permit.

Have we learned nothing from the current consequences of our disrespect of our planet? We should not test weapons of destruction anywhere especially not in our rain forest. This area is an echo system we can not afford to destroy. When we kill bees and fish we kill birds and cougars and bears and Humans. I am against the testing of weapons in the rain forest of Washington.

Please do not allow this to happen to our Olympic National Forest.

The Navy is not putting Weapons on the Olympic Peninsula. They are RADAR transmitter/receivers, virtually no differerent than any ground RADAR used at most civilian airports in this country. The Radio beam they produce is only a few degrees wide. You would have to be directly in front of the antenna or very close to the side of it to be harmed - this is no different than any commercial TV/Radio/Satellite station uplink antenna - just dont stand in front if it for any length of time.

The jets are weapons, but they are not testing weapons - they are training, and yes, they are noisy - but unless you are standing right behind them with full Afterburners on, they are actually quieter than the previous generation Prowlers.

[read the original for photos, formatting, hyperlinks]

http://www.examiner.com/article/u-s-navy-planning-electronic-warfare-training-the-olympic-national-forest?CID=examiner_alerts_article

U.S. Navy planning electronic warfare training in the Olympic National Forest
by Nancy Swanson (Seattle GMO Examiner)
October 25, 2014

Without actually performing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the U.S. Navy has decided to use the National Forests on the Olympic Peninsula for electronic war games. The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) is poised to give the green light to this proposal.

The Navy has acquired some fancy jets that are equipped with electronic combat equipment. The mission is to detect, locate and destroy or disable enemy radar installations. But the pilots need training to operate the electronic gadgets. They already have a radio frequency (RF) emitter tower in Coupeville, but they've decided they need to install another emitter tower at their Annex at Pacific Beach on the coast. But the training would be much better if the “enemy” targets could move around and the pilots didn't already know exactly where they were. So some genius dreamed up the idea of putting mobile emitter units all around the National Forests. Proposed are 15 sites on the Olympic Peninsula, 12 on National Forest land and 3 on Washington State Department of Natural Resources land. An additional 8 sites are proposed on National Forest land in Eastern Washington.

The Navy has performed an Environmental Assessment (EA) for these mobile emitters. In this assessment, they have determined that there will be no significant impact to: Public Health and Safety; Biological Resources; Noise; Air Quality; and Visual Resources. Since they have determined that there will be no significant impact, they use this to then claim that a full EIS is not necessary. Translation: we don't think there are any problems; therefore there are no problems and we don't have to prove it. Trust us.

The people who performed the EA have no expertise in electromagnetic radiation, so the EA is heavy on noise and light on the impact of high energy RF radiation. In the section on Noise, they only take into account the noise from the generators supplying power to the mobile units. These would be operating an average of 9 hours per day, 260 days per year for a total of 7,020 hours per year in Olympic National Forest. Double that if you count the proposed mobile units in the Okanogon and Roosevelt National Forests in Eastern Washington. Curiously, they don't take into account the noise of the aircraft because they claim that they are not increasing the current number of training flights, they are only adding electronic warfare to the training during the flights. But it seems clear, even to the casual observer, that the current training flights would not be directly over the Olympic National Forest. The flight path must change to reflect the new training requirements, mustn't it? Aircraft noise has certainly diminished the peace and quiet of Deception Pass State Park.

The authors of the EA admit that the noise and the electromagnetic radiation may disturb wildlife, but they always conclude with these oft-repeated phrases: “It is unlikely that a single transit by a mobile emitter would evoke anything other than a short-term behavioral response.” [e.g., p. 3.2-25, EA] and “Electromagnetic radiation may have an impact on vegetation, invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, and non-listed birds and mammals... however, it is unlikely that [all of the above] would be constantly exposed to electromagnetic radiation, and therefore negative effects are less likely to occur.” [e.g. p. 3.2-26, EA]

Their claim that the noise and the RF radiation will not impact the flora and fauna is entirely based on the premise that the mobile emitters are moving around the forest, so no long-term effects are expected. This despite the fact that 3 mobile units will be in operation for 9 hours per day 260 days per year. Curiously, they state “Dense vegetation can reduce noise levels by as much as 5 dB for every 100 ft. (30.5 m) of vegetation, up to a maximum reduction of 10 dB over 200 ft. (60.9 m).” [p. 3.2-24, EA] And yet, with regard to the RF radiation, they cite the lack of dense vegetation as a reason why the flora won't be harmed. “Furthermore, these sites have been preselected because, in general, they are on a cliff or ridgeline and/or currently provide an open area to the west of the pull-out that enables the mobile emitter a clear line of sight to the west. [p. 2-4, EA]. A study by Haggerty implicates low-level RF background in the decline of aspen trees in the U.S. Do we want to find out what high-level RF will do to cedars, firs, moss, ferns and such?

The only wildlife taken into account in the EA were those on the endangered or sensitive species list. They determined that there may be harm done to some individual animals or birds but that would not affect the overall population, therefore they issued the finding that some species may be affected but not adversely affected. “Impacts to wildlife are determined significant if the fitness of individual animals were affected directly or indirectly to the extent that populations would decline or become unstable. For an outcome to be biologically significant to a population, it must have a measurable impact on the population and/or its habitat which could reasonably be expected to affect its stability, and as a result influence a population’s viability.” [p. 3.2-22, EA]

In the section on Visual Resources they only take into account the tower at Pacific Beach. They do not take into account the mobile units. In the EA, the mobile units are portrayed in an artist's rendition as looking like a camper with an antenna on top. This is presumably why they didn't bother; how many campers are already in the park? But the mobile unit that was tested in 2012 at Pacific Beach bears no resemblance to a camper. The mobile Joint Threat Emitter, made by Northrop Grumman, looks more like something out of Star Wars. Perhaps the artist's drawing is what the Navy hopes the mobile unit will look like when they finally get this project going.

The EA is light on details concerning the electromagnetic radiation of the fixed and mobile emitters. There is not enough information to really determine the known effects. The frequencies given are in the microwave range. The missing details are probably classified, but here is what they give:

The transmitter tower at Pacific Beach

A fixed emitter at Pacific Beach on a tower would have a total height of about 66 ft. above ground level. The fixed emitter is capable of generating an electromagnetic wave at frequencies ranging from 2 to18 gigahertz (GHz). It can emit up to 64 simultaneous signals and can transmit in pulses or a continuous wave. [p. 2-1, EA]

In the EA, reference is made several times to the transmitter tower already having been through the Environmental Impact process, giving the impression that the environmental impact of the tower need not be further assessed. For example: “The NWTRC EIS/OEIS [Northwest Training Range Complex Environmental Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement] has an October 2010 Record of Decision that approved an alternative that included EW training activities associated with the establishment of a fixed emitter in the Pacific Beach area.” [p. 2-8, EA]

The Northwest Training Range Complex Environmental Impact Statement is a massive document in three volumes (2,713 pages) covering all aspects of land, sea and air operations by the Navy in the Pacific Northwest. In this document, mention is made of possibly installing a fixed emitter at Pacific Beach or some other coastal location. “Pacific Beach, Washington is one potential location for a fixed land based electronic warfare (EW) emitter. This location, or a similar site on the Washington coast, would allow EC training at sea for ships, submarines, and aircraft...].” [p. 2-29, NWTRC EIS; emphasis added]

There was no real environmental assessment done for this possibility other than to acknowledge that the RF radiation could be hazardous, but it was up high on a tower, aimed to the west over the ocean, appropriate warning signage would be employed keeping people and flammable materials at a safe distance. It is also inside of a secure, Navy-owned area, so is of no further concern. Pacific Beach Elementary School, near the tower-mounted emitter is located approximately 2,000 ft. from the proposed tower location. According to the EA this “is well outside any controlled or action level environment where there might be hazardous exposure levels.” [p. 3.1-6, EA]

The US Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion on the NWTRC EIS does not mention the emitter at Pacific Beach or radiation.

The environmental impact of the tower wasn't adequately addressed in the NWTRC EIS. The environmental impact of the tower is not addressed in the EA, as the claim is made that it was addressed in the NWTRC EIS. They are sliding the tower in sideways.

The mobile emitters

There are two types of vehicle-mounted mobile emitters that are being proposed. One utilizes a Traveling Wave Tube Amplifier (TWTA) capable of generating an electromagnetic wave at frequencies ranging from 4 to 8 GHz. The other is a Magnetron capable of generating an electromagnetic wave at frequencies ranging from 6.7 to 7.4 GHz. One of these (it is unclear which) operates at an approximate peak transmit power of 100 kW and the other at 3 kW. [p. 3.2-26, EA]. Folks, these are high power microwave emitters, by definition. Low power microwaves, in cell phones and such, are generated with transistors and/or diodes. In the NWTRC EIS/OEIS, the tower emitter is likened to cell phones and such, which is totally disingenuous.

Mention of “peak transmit power” implies that these emitters are pulsed. What they are not telling us is the pulse width, the pulse repetition rate, the duty cycle and the average power. These parameters are needed to determine the full hazards. Nevertheless, these emitters can produce electromagnetic hazards. Someone has determined that the minimum distance for safety is about 100 ft. But this only takes into account safety from thermal (heat) effects (burning of skin and eyes). Other known effects are not taken into account. The authors of the EA brush this off with the following: “There are no conclusive direct hazards to human tissue as a result of electromagnetic radiation. Links to DNA fragmentation, leukemia, and cancer due to intermittent exposure to extremely high levels of electromagnetic radiation are speculative; study data are inconsistent and insufficient at this time (Focke et al. 2009).” [p. 3.1-1, EA]

This paper by Focke et al. deals with extremely low frequency radiation (50 Hz) and is therefore completely irrelevant to the GHz radiation proposed (1 GHz = 1 billion Hz). Maybe they should have consulted with the Army. This de-classified Army report on RF weapons outlines several ways that RF radiation can harm mammals. One is thermal: burning and hyperthermia (heat stroke) inducing disorientation. “In prolonged hyperthermia, with temperatures over 40º C to 41º C, the brain suffers severe damage that usually leads to death.” The size of the animal and the wavelength of the radiofrequency are most important. In the Rhesus monkey a frequency of 0.225 GHz at 10 W/kg of body weight caused the body temperature to increase to 42º C within 10-15 minutes. A lower dose of 5 W/kg caused the temperature to increase to 41.5º C in less than two hours. The convulsive threshold for rats is estimated to lie between 22-35 W/gm for one second.

A second method of incapacitating mammals with RF radiation is called “microwave hearing.” Microwave hearing is the sensation of buzzing, ticking, hissing or knocking sounds that originate within the head from pulsed microwaves. There is no sound present. The threshold energy of the microwave auditory response in humans is a function of pulse width and frequency but also varies from individual to individual. For a frequency of 2.45 GHz. the incident energy density per pulse must equal or exceed 20 mJ/kg body weight with pulse widths between 0.5-32 microseconds. Not enough information is given about the mobile emitters to make a determination of this effect. The threshold for animals and birds is not known. The onset is immediate but only lasts as long as the exposure. In addition to disrupting hearing, there might also be an adverse psychological effect.

A third method for incapacitating mammals with RF radiation is disruption of neural control. The neurons are electrically stimulated in a synchronous manner. Electronic stimulation of neural synchrony can be achieved. At just the right frequency, pulse repetition rate and energy, seizure can result. “The condition thought to be necessary to produce [this effect is] an overall [pulse] repetition rate of 15 Hz. Such a field may be developed using a radar-like, high-peak-power, pulsed source...The effective range could be hundreds of meters.” This would vary from individual to individual. Not enough information is given about the mobile emitters to make a determination of this effect.

In addition to these RF weapons outlined by the Army document, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine warns against the cumulative bio-effects of RF background radiation above and beyond thermal effects. The long list of references includes effects in the 2-8 GHz range including oxidative damage to DNA (Xu et al., 2010) and altering gene expression (Lee et al., 2005). Other effects are: motor and cognitive impairment, sleep disorders, behavioral and neurological disorders, pre-natal development disorders and chromosomal instability.

The plan is for the Navy crew to drive the mobile unit to a designated pull-out and set up the 100 ft. radius with warning tape and warning signs (wouldn't this block all other traffic on the road?). During operation, one of the crew members would be monitoring the site for human or animal intrusion while the other operates the equipment. Should an animal or human enter the “unsafe” zone, the equipment would be turned off and the animal or human would be induced to leave the area. Should the animal or human refuse to leave, the Navy crew would pack up and move to another location.

The authors of the report admit that the radiation can affect the wildlife in various ways: disruption of nesting, behavioral and physiological responses, disruption of sleep-wake cycles, interference with the pineal gland and hormonal imbalance, changes in alarm and aversion behavior and overall deterioration of health and reproductive problems. However, they reassure us that this will not be a problem because they will relocate if they see any animals. [p. 3.2-5, EA]

Besides claiming that there will be no long-term effects because the mobile units are moving around, they also state in many places that the RF beam is directional and pointing at the sky. Birds will fly through it rapidly and will not be exposed for long enough to bother them. Animals on the ground will be outside of the beam, will probably not be around anyway because of the noise or will be deliberately scared off. [p. 5-3, EA]

There is one aspect that is conspicuously missing. Recall that the mission is to identify, locate and destroy or disable the RF source. They do not address this third part: destroy or disable. The NWTRC EIS/OEIS makes a brief mention of simulating the firing of a HARM [High-speed Anti-Radiation] missile. This missile has an inbuilt detector to home in on the RF source. But, presumably, these jets are also equipped with RF weapons, bursts of RF radiation designed to scramble or fry the electronics of the source emitter. Will these be used in the training exercises? If so, they will be pointing downward, toward the source and the forest.

Finally, as stated in the EA: “The Proposed Action would occur on government-owned lands, either operated by the Navy or the USFS. The nature of activities for the Proposed Action would not differ from current uses of these areas.” [p. 5-4, EA]

Oh, yeah. We zap microwaves around the forest all the time.

The USFS has extended the comment period to10/31/2014. Submit your comments online or via e-mail to: comments-pacificnorthwest-olympic-pacific [at] fs.fed.us

I am sure this is a blatant lie:
"The Forest Service is accepting comments on the Navy’s environmental
study until Oct. 31. More than 200 people have already written to the
agency."

Because: I am aware of at least one comment that was submitted
directly via USFS webform and all fields filled out correctly that
NEVER appeared in the "Public Reading Room" so who knows how many
similar events occurred (ie, comments discarded and not counted),
nevertheless there are a TON of comments listed in the Public Reading
Room, easily over 400. PLUS I know of several people who submitted
their comment via direct email message, and those never do show up in
the Public Reading Room, so there are probably thousands more comments
than what is shown in the Public Reading Room. If that is all that
are going to be counted, we the public are being SHAFTED!

The lie above is from here:
http://www.theolympian.com/2014/10/18/3376770_navy-plan-for-radar-detection.html?rh=1#storylink=cpy

Here below is one comment from Great Old Broads for Wilderness, plus I
made another collection of some of the public comments I read
(selected at random from the "Public Reading Room" -- and the ones I downloaded add up to 245 so far, and this is a fraction of the total on the site) -- some of these
make excellent points -- and which I posted at http://tinyurl.com/nxtp7br
(the previous collection is still at http://tinyurl.com/nceajln )


[Comments are due October 31, if you haven't sent one in yet,
instructions are at the bottom of this message].


================

Date submitted (UTC): 10/22/2014 8:15:28 PM
First name: Shelley
Last name: Spalding
Organization:
Title:
Official Representative/Member Indicator:
Address1:
Address2:
City:
State:
Province/Region:
Zip/Postal Code:
Country:
Email: saschar44 [at] gmail.com

Comments:
Fwd: protest Electromagnetic Warfare- Friday, October 24 at 3:00

There is a great deal of conern all over the Peninsula - from Forks,
to Sequim, and hopefully to Olympia and
beyond - about the proposed permit for Electromagnetic Warfare
Training in the Olympic National Forest. You
can take several steps to help stop this terrible plan. If we don't
get out, write letters and send emails, it will
happen. It is not easy to stop the navy.

1. Read the article in the Olympian below

2. Send an email to Greg Wahl at the Forest
Service requesting public information
meetings in both north (Port Angeles) and south (Olympia) and extend
the date for comments to accomodate
these meetings. Information is needed in order to provide substantive comments

3. Send a comment letter (see letter from Olympic Park Associates).
Can also be sent to Greg Wahl.

4. Come to the protest gathering Friday (see below)

http://www.theolympian.com/2014/10/18/3376770_navy-plan-for-radar-detection.html?rh=1


PLEASE GATHER ON THE SIDEWALK!!! to protest
Friday, October 24 at 3:00 pm
bring your drums ... rain gear...

Bring your
Letters of opposition addressed to
Greg Wahl, Forest Service environmental coordinator,
1835 Black Lake Blvd. S.W.,
Olympia, WA 98512

Your children's drawings on what the forest means to them.
Rain gear and Hats
We are protected by 1st amendment rights on the public sidewalk, but
not in the parking lot. We will need to
keep moving in an orderly fashion. We are not protected in the US
Forestry parking lot..
This is a non violent gathering

OPA Comment letter:
"To whom it may concern:

Olympic Park Associates (OPA) appreciates this opportunity to comment
on the establishment of a permanent
electromagnetic warfare training range on the western half of the
Olympic Peninsula.
Olympic Park Associates is an organization of United States citizens
living primarily in Washington State.
Members live and/or recreate on the Olympic Peninsula. Our
organization?s mission is ?to protect the
wilderness and ecological integrity of Olympic National Park?
OPA strongly opposes the establishment of a permanent electromagnetic
warfare training range on the
western half of the Olympic Peninsula. The reasons for our opposition
are many:
Arial maneuvers and their resulting horrific noise on the western half
of the Olympic Peninsula would be
disastrous to citizens living in the area, citizens recreating in the
area, and the over 3 million yearly visitors to
the area.
A National Park Service (NPS) report issued in July of this year
showed that in 2013, 3,085,340 visitors to
Olympic National Park spent $245,894,100 in communities near the park.
That spending supported 2,993 jobs
in the local area.
There is insufficient scientific information available to determine
the dilatory effects of electromagnetic waves
on humans, animals, and other living organisms. Yearly, millions of
people and wildlife use the lands in the
Olympic National Forest, Olympic National Park, and Olympic Coast
National Marine Sanctuary all having land
and waters located on the western half of the Olympic Peninsula.
Humans, whales to amebae would be
subjected to these electromagnetic waves without discrimination.
The use of electromagnetic waves cannot be stopped at Olympic National
Park?s border nor the border of the
Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary, nor the Washington Islands
National Wildlife Refuges which were
established by Theodore Roosevelt in 1907. The refuges include
125-acre Flattery Rocks, 300-acre Quillayute
Needles, and 60-acre Copalis, stretching off-shore from Cape Flattery
all the way south to Copalis,
Washington. More than 600 islands, rocks, and reefs comprise the refuges.

Olympic National Park is an International Biosphere Reserve
. It
was designated a World Heritage Site
in 1981.

Because there is insufficient knowledge about the effects of
electromagnetic waves on living organisms, we
ask that an Environmental Impact Statement be provided for this
proposal. We also submit that the procedure
being followed for this proposal is in violation of the Endangered Species Act.
The activities that would come to the Olympic Peninsula as a result of
the establishment of this training warfare
range violates the Wilderness Act of 1964 by invading the wilderness
status of Olympic National Park and the
designated Wilderness areas within Olympic National Forest on the west
side of the Olympic Peninsula.
Airplane noise generated just outside of the park or the National
Forest Wilderness Areas cannot be stopped at
their border and therefore is a violation to their wilderness character.

A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works
dominate the landscape, is hereby
recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are
untrammeled by man, where man himself
is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further
defined to mean in this Act an area of
undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and
influence, without permanent improvements or
human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its
natural conditions and which (1)
generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of
nature, with the imprint of man's work
substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for
solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of
recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of
sufficient size as to make practicable its
preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also
contain ecological, geological, or other
features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value.?
[Wilderness Act 1964]
Wilderness? multiple uses are invaluable to our nation, our people,
our future, and therefore precious to us all.
These lands make our earth livable. Many of the wilderness areas on
the Olympic Peninsula attracts many
more people than can be accommodated without a permitting system for
visitation.
In addition, native vegetation pulls pollution from the air and water;
soils and plant roots filter the water. Trees
and vegetation also serve to sequester carbon by using it -- trading
the carbon dioxide in the air for oxygen.
This reduces global warming and ocean acidification.
Wilderness holds nature?s storehouse of genes that may someday provide
new cures for disease; new and
healthier plants and animals for agriculture. Over 50% of medical
pharmaceuticals currently come from nature.
Wilderness provides wildlife habitat far better than any zoo.
The sites designated by the plan are on National Forest land. Some of
which has been designated as
protected areas for spotted owl and marbled murrelet. Marbled
murrelets travel up to 50 miles from the forests
on the coast to the sea to feed their young. Extensive flight training
[up to for 12 hours a day, up to 260 days a
year] in this area would disturb, perhaps eradicate, these threatened birds.
Olympic Park Associates argue that there are areas where the planned
training could be done that would result
in much less damage to the environment, people, and other living things.
We will ask that the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior uphold
their mandate under the Wilderness Act to
provide protection of the Wilderness Areas on the western Olympic
Peninsula from activities that would violate
their wilderness character.
??each agency administering any area designated as wilderness shall be
responsible for preserving the
wilderness character of the area and shall so administer such area for
such other purposes for which it may
have been established as also to preserve its wilderness character.
Except as otherwise provided in this Act,
wilderness areas shall be devoted to the public purposes of
recreational, scenic, scientific, educational,
conservation, and historical use.? [Wilderness Act 0f 1964]
?(4) Within wilderness areas in the national forests designated by
this Act, (1) the President may, within a
specific area and in accordance with such regulations as he may deem
desirable, authorize prospecting for
water resources, the establishment and maintenance of reservoirs,
water-conservation works, power projects,
transmission lines, and other facilities needed in the public
interest, including the road construction and
maintenance essential to development and use thereof, upon his
determination that such use or uses in the
specific area will better serve the interests of the United States and
the people thereof than will its denial;?
[Wilderness Act 0f 1964]
Olympic Park Associates argues that the value to the people of the
United States is far better served by not
placing this warfare training range in the proposed location. As
proposed it would cause great economic and
environmental harm to the people living on the Olympic Peninsula and
the many tourists that visit this area
every year. Because this is federal land set aside for the benefit of
all United States citizens, this proposal
degrades those benefits to all.
Sincerely,
Donna Osseward, President
Olympic Park Associates
13245 ? 40th Ave NE
Seattle, WA 98125"
--
--

Shelley

Great Old Broads for Wilderness is a national organization that
engages and ignites the activism of elders to
preserve and protect wilderness and wild lands. Broads gives voice to
the millions of older Americans who
want to protect their public lands as Wilderness for this and future
generations. We bring experience,
commitment, and humor to the movement to protect the last wild places on Earth.


=============
=============

Comments are due October 31.

send to this Email address:

comments-pacificnorthwest-olympic-pacific [at] fs.fed.us


Subject line of the email must say:

Pacific Northwest Electronic Warfare Range Environmental Assessment (EA)


More information and links to USFS at
https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/10/07/18762560.php?show_comments=1#18763360

and don't miss the article by Nancy Swanson below:
http://www.examiner.com/article/u-s-navy-planning-electronic-warfare-training-the-olympic-national-forest?CID=examiner_alerts_article
U.S. Navy planning electronic warfare training in the Olympic National Forest
Nancy Swanson

I noticed that at the bottom of the "Public Reading Room" pages it gives a total (now says they have 1,791 comments there -- a few are from USFS officials etc). That is better than what that article said. But still there is no count shown of the emailed Public Comments, plus who knows how many others like the one I know that was never "published" in the Reading Room even though submitted through the web-form.