Reading local headlines one would be led to believe that the EIS was some sort of determination that Madison is still the number one choice for F-35s. That is not what an EIS is . . .
LOCAL HEADLINES?
I was wondering how it was that I missed the headlines that the local news was touting:
- Air Force: Madison preferred location for F-35 fight jets – AP
- Madison remains preferred location for F-35s – Fox 47
- Madison selected as a preferred location for F-35s – WMTV
- Push to bring F-35s to Madison crosses another hurdle, awaits final Air Force decision – Cap Times
- Despite opposition, Madison remains preferred F-35 site in latest report – WKOW
- Madison remains top pick for F-35 program despite impacts outlined in final study – State Journal
- Madison and Montgomery, Alabama considered preferred locations for F-35s – Channel3000.com
In writing the headline for my first article, I was thinking more about looking at the five cities side by side after further analysis, what did they find? Which is why I compared the 5 options side by side. After I wrote the article, I realized that not much has changed since the draft EIS. At least not in the summaries of the investigations. Here was my headline.
- Final EIS for F35s is out – How did Madison Rank? – Forwardlookout.com
I was thinking about the criteria they were investigation, not the final ranking of the 5 cities. My title could have been more clear, I wasn’t thinking that this would get spun as a decision making point. I think only the Cap Times got the headline right. And maybe Channel3000.com – but that isn’t news.
FWIW – Here is my second article looking at how they responded to our many, many comments: How Did the Air National Guard Respond to Madison’s Comment on F-35s?
WHAT IS AN EIS?
My layperson’s understanding
I didn’t expect to find a change in ranking. I didn’t even fathom that there would be a change. My understanding of an EIS is that is an assessment of the issues required to be studied. It’s a report on the environmental factors to be considered in decision making. When it is completed, that information is used to make a decision. And that in the case of the EIS for the F-35s, the decision can’t be made until 30 days after it if officially published in the federal register. I wouldn’t have expected the EIS to change the rankings, so that is not what is news here – the news it that the EIS is out and available. The other news is what has changed in the 100s of pages of the documents – which is hard to assess quickly. Or news is how they responded to our comments.
But then again, this isn’t an area where I have expertise, so I started wondering, did I blow the headline?
Steve Klafka
Stever Klafka wrote this on a listserve I am on:
I think the reporters are confused. Truax was the preferred location based on logistical considerations prior to preparation of the Draft EIS. With issuance of the Final EIS, Truax remains a preferred location. The EIS would not have changed the status of Truax based on this earlier decision based solely on logistics.
Now that the Final EIS has been issued, the Air Force will incorporate the environmental impacts to determine (by the end of March) if Truax is still a good location. Fingers crossed, the Air Force, now that it knows the enormous impacts of siting the jets here, may see the light, and choose another site.
From the FEIS:
Comment #3b) Commenters asked how the five alternatives and two preferred alternatives were selected.
Response: As discussed in the EIS (Section 2.3.1) and pursuant to Air Force Instruction 10-503, based on extensive analysis by the NGB and USAF operations communities, a study was conducted to determine the specific requirements for beddown of the F-35A aircraft and to identify potential military installations where this beddown could occur. Following this study, the Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF) and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force approved selection criteria for the F-35A beddown. The initial screening yielded a defined enterprise of 18 alternative installations to be evaluated for the 5th and 6th Operational Beddowns. NGB presented objective screening criteria to the Strategic Basing Executive Steering Group to be used in the identification of installations for the beddown of the F-35A. The approved criteria were used to screen the enterprise of 18 alternative installations to identify those installations’ capacity to successfully support the F-35A mission. The objective criteria included mission, capacity, environmental considerations, and cost.
As discussed in the EIS (Section 2.3.2), the SECAF announced the two preferred alternatives for the 5th and 6th F-35A Operational Beddown as the: 115 FW at Dane County Regional Airport, Madison, Wisconsin; and 187 FW at Montgomery Regional Airport, Montgomery, Alabama. Identification of the preferred alternatives is not the final decision. The USAF will make the final basing decisions after the EIS is complete. The final decision will be reflected in a Record of Decision (ROD), anticipated to be signed in March of 2020.
Also:
Comment #7d) Commenters suggested that the EIS should explain how Environmental Justice and children’s health impacts were considered when identifying the preferred alternatives.
Response: As discussed in Sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 of the EIS, application of the screening criteria resulted in an enterprise of 18 alternative installations, which yielded a clear break in scoring with the five alternative installations carried forward for detailed analysis in the EIS. The screening criteria involved considerations of mission, capacity, cost, and environmental factors. The two alternatives that have been initially identified as the preferred alternatives for Operational Beddowns 5 and 6 were identified by the SECAF in December 2017, as best meeting the needs of the USAF based primarily on operational and cost factors. The analysis conducted in the EIS had not yet been accomplished; Environmental Justice and children’s health were not and are not required to be considered in the identification of the preferred alternatives.
Thank you Steve, for that important clarification.
And I googled . . .
Wikipedia
An environmental impact statement (EIS), under United States environmental law, is a document required by the 1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for certain actions “significantly affecting the quality of the human environment”.[1] An EIS is a tool for decision making. It describes the positive and negative environmental effects of a proposed action, and it usually also lists one or more alternative actions that may be chosen instead of the action described in the EIS. …
The purpose of the NEPA is to promote informed decision-making by federal agencies by making “detailed information concerning significant environmental impacts” available to both agency leaders and the public.[2] The NEPA was the first piece of legislation that created a comprehensive method to assess potential and existing environmental risks at once. It also encourages communication and cooperation between all the actors involved in environmental decisions, including government officials, private businesses, and citizens.[3]
EPA Explanation
Federal agencies prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) if a proposed major federal action is determined to significantly affect the quality of the human environment. The regulatory requirements for an EIS are more detailed and rigorous than the requirements for an EA.
Summary of the EIS Process
- An agency publishes a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register. The Notice of Intent informs the public of the upcoming environmental analysis and describes how the public can become involved in the EIS preparation.This Notice of Intent starts the scoping process, which is the period in which the federal agency and the public collaborate to define the range of issues and possible alternatives to be addressed in the EIS.
- A draft EIS is published for public review and comment for a minimum of 45 days.Upon close of the comment period, agencies consider all substantive comments and, if necessary, conduct further analyses.
- A final EIS is then published, which provides responses to substantive comments.Publication of the final EIS begins the minimum 30-day “wait period,” in which agencies are generally required to wait 30 days before making a final decision on a proposed action.EPA publishes a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register, announcing the availability of both draft and final EISs to the public. Find EISs with open comments or wait periods.
- The EIS process ends with the issuance of the Record of Decision (ROD). The ROD:
- explains the agency’s decision,
- describes the alternatives the agency considered, and
- discusses the agency’s plans for mitigation and monitoring, if necessary.
WHAT’S NEXT?
- They publish the final EIS in the Federal Register. Expected next week.
- We wait at least 30 days for a decision to be announced – and try to influence decision makers and the people they listen to.
- Then, if selected, many other things have to happen, among them are getting the many, many, many, many permits and permissions that would be required.
