There should be plenty of discussion of gun control following Saturday night’s murderous spree by a wealthy white social misfit in Santa Barbara.  

The highly emotional comments by one victim’s distraught father provide ample opportunity for expansion on the subject, but I will leave that for others to do.

If past experience is any predictor, how this young man with a long history of mental illness managed to arm himself and conceal those weapons from a police welfare visit just weeks before the rampage will fuel both the arguments of gun control advocates and aggressive NRA counterpoints until the inevitable next incident resets the clock of inaction once again.

In this, as in several recent mass murder incidents, the perpetrator used social media as a platform from which to gather a crowd of virtual witnesses to his personal torment; or to leave behind a testimonial rationale for his crimes.

When murder isn’t even an issue, bullying and suicide have become all too frequent among the impersonal, yet invasively intimate behaviors springing from social media.

Hyper connection isn’t just about the cozy circles we see in Google commercials.  It is equally about narcissism and extreme isolation.

Too much of a good thing isn’t a good thing at all.

The introduction of each new communication platform has been met with earlier and earlier adoption by a willing public, anxious never to be left behind.  Our children play an especially important role in media marketing; and we have completely embraced the idea that, as a natural extension of valuable information technology, in order to “succeed,” they must have all communication media at their fingertips.

When my twenty-seven year old son was five years old, our family got its first computer.  Even though it was second-hand and we were years behind Silicon Valley, we thought that, for Vermont, we were ahead of the curve, using “Mario Teaches Typing” to familiarize our kid with the keyboard.

When he was in second grade and we acquired the internet (for “research” purposes, only, of course) our son became the first member of our household to use e-mail.  

Unlike most of his friends,  Jesse didn’t have a TV in his room; nor did we have Nintendo in the house.  The computer sat in a room that was shared by the whole family, as did the telephone.

We had the Atari/ Nintendo discussion every Christmas and always managed to find ways to avoid acquisition.  

When Jesse was in middle school, first pagers, then cell phones began to appear in the pockets of twelve year olds.  They made some sense for kids whose parents worked far from home, but we had a small home business and Jesse could always do his telephoning from the house.

The end of media control came for us when Jesse entered high school and was required to have a lap-top computer issued by the school so that he could submit homework on the school network.  The laptop entered his bedroom and that was that.

He was fourteen by then and had spent a great deal of time socializing the old fashioned way, so he was ready to take charge of his own media exchanges.    

“Facebook” was just a printed book with pictures of the kids he saw daily at school.  Eventually, the online version became available to college kids; then to high-school kids; then to everyone.

Obviously this slow adoption would be virtually impossible now.  I’ve seen parents at AT&T discussing “plans” for their pre-schooler; and even pets and inanimate objects have Twitter accounts!

This institutionalized navel-gazing may be fun or even informative for the vast majority of users; but if, for even a few troubled souls, it may be dangerously enabling, we have to ask ourselves some tough questions about

how much of our children’s social interactions we want to sacrifice on the altar of technical competitiveness.

It isn’t difficult to imagine a kid who is vulnerable to mental illness becoming so isolated by anonymous experiences on the internet, and the uncensored opportunity for personal power through social media, that he creates in his own mind a cosmos of which he is the center and the only person of consequence.

Is it any wonder that the random body count seems to be growing even as personal communication opportunities do the same?

If you didn’t catch HBO’s Vice last night, you missed an important piece of reporting.  

One segment of Vice, “Playing With Nuclear Fire,” gave a vivid portrait of the horrifying radiation news from Fukushima that has been suppressed by the Japanese government and nuclear industry in order to protect their selfish interests.  

The news media has, for the most part, acted as passive receivers of official reports, applying no scrutiny of their own, so that the American public has remained under-curious about this enormous and continuing crisis.

I had read the obscure reports about deformed and dying butterflies; but in this program we actually see them.

Coverage provided by Vice of the rapidly multiplying barrels of radioactive water at the crippled plant, and the mountains of bags of radioactive earth and debris stockpiled around the Japanese countryside, is a chilling reminder that we have a huge and unresolved problem even without a nuclear accident here in the U.S.  

There simply is no safe place where existing nuclear waste can go; nevermind any that we may produce in the future.

This is just a taste of the entire segment, but I would urge our readers to watch the  program if you can.

You won’t be disappointed.

It seems that the stubborn problem of nuclear waste will not stay off the radar, no matter how hard the nuclear industry tries to hide it.

The latest development is a newly discovered leak at the Department of Energy’s Waste Isolation Pilot Project in New Mexico, near Carlsbad, California.

Vermont’s own Arnie Gundersen, of Fairewinds Associates made an appearance on CNN last night to explain the problem, an example of the all too likely scenario of human error intervening in the theoretically “safe” longterm storage of nuclear waste.

Apparently, conventional cat litter has, for decades, been the preferred material to soak up spills in nuclear labs. So it made sense that, when the question of moisture suppression arose in long-term storage of nuclear waste, kitty litter efficiently answered the call.  Barrels containing the waste were packed for long term storage with kitty litter in order to draw moisture away from the sensitive contents.  

Unfortunately, some well-meaning soul, probably in procurement, changed the type of cat litter used to an organic variety, apparently without consulting anyone with a knowledge of chemistry.  

As Arnie explains, the organic cat litter is corn-based, and when the corn absorbs the nitrogen in the container, a very volatile and unstable compound resembling nitroglycerin is the product. This has already led to the explosion of a barrel in the underground facility In New Mexico, broadcasting radiation contamination all over the place.

It is unknown how many more containers are affected; or even where those may be located.

According to the order, two of those containers are known to be at WIPP. It doesn’t say where the rest of the barrels are, but Los Alamos was in the process of transferring the last of thousands of barrels of waste from decades of nuclear bomb making to the underground dump when the leak shuttered the half-mile (800-meter)-deep mine.

Bad enough is the discovery and clean-up effort that will be required inside the WIPP underground facility.  Far more concerning is the fate of the unknown number of similarly affected barrels that may be resting above ground in locations  there and elsewhere in the country.

Arnie points to the high temperatures coming with summer that will only serve to exacerbate the explosion potential from those undetected barrels.

This material gets more and more unstable as it gets warmer; and, of course, we’re heading into the summer months on the desert.   So, those barrels that are above ground, if they were to blow like the one that did below ground, we’d have a serious public health effect.

As they listen to Entergy’s arguments that there will be no need for an evacuation plan once Yankee has been shuttered for six months, one can only hope that the NRC will bear in mind the lesson on the dangers of simple human error illustrated at WIPP.

To that they should add the mental image of mice and other vermin gaining access over the decades before the plant is fully neutralized.  Think of all those non-humans randomly gnawing away at wires and other essential conduits.

If that isn’t enough to chill their blood, they should think of a solitary watchman, ten years on the job at pay Entergy deems fitting for a non-returning facility.  Think of that watchman snoozing fitfully while some fledgling terrorist or foolish teenager breeches aging security features to gain access to nuclear materials or scrap copper fittings.

There are so many ways in which to fear the post nuclear future.  We will have created so much toxic product; so many substances that didn’t exist before human folly created them.

Could they be our final legacy?

A knowledgable reader has written to correct the number of fuel rods I have mentioned in the post.  My information was obviously dated.  Here is the corrected information provided by the reader:

_____________________________________________________________________________

It’s not even June and already multiple wildfires pepper the coast of California following a crazy-quilt path of destruction.  

Right in the middle of it all, halfway between the huge population centers of Lost Angeles and San Diego,  is the recently decommissioned San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station with its spent fuel stockpile of 1,677 rods still sitting in cooling ponds.

Water is the only thing preventing the rods from melting down and releasing unimaginable amounts of deadly radiation into the environment; and water is the first thing to go in a boiling environment.

Friends of the Earth estimates that the spent fuel at San Onofre contains 89 times the quantity of Cesium-137 that was released from the accident at Chernobyl.

If any of the possible scenarios for loss of water from the cooling ponds due to fire were to occur, not only would an enormous human population be immediately endangered, but the impact of food security for the entire nation is unimaginable.  For better or worse, California has come to be the “breadbasket” of the United States.

Destroy California’s arable environment and we will see large-scale starvation in this country.

“Alarmist,” you say?  Yes, I am.

I am alarmed by the fact that, faced with all of this grim potential, the NRC is still in a position to grant absolution from responsibility for emergency planning  to power companies whose nuclear facilities have ceased to produce power.

One can’t help but fault the media for doing a piss-poor job of shining the bright light of attention on systemic regulatory failure over the decades at the NRC.  We wouldn’t be in the fix we’re in now with spent fuel piling up at nuclear plants all over the country and no real plan for its permanent disposal, if the public had been fully educated from the start.

The new Godzilla movie, I am told, carefully avoids the antinuclear theme of the original.  Why is this, I wonder? Post Fukushima, with every opportunity to give the giant lizard a new timeliness, why would the filmmakers not do so?

Big business enables big business.  Energy companies are knitted together with entertainment and communications giants and other energy companies, so that the interests of one can become inseparable from those of the other.

So, instead of updates on the chronic radiation release from Fukushima and our unsecured stockpiles of nuclear waste in the U.S., we get a warm-and-fuzzy about post nuclear catastrophe (“The Wolves of Chernobyl”) and twenty-four-seven coverage of “the plane.”

‘Nice knowing you, California.

It’s nice to see Vermont standing up to Entergy, who, soon after Yankee cuts the power, would like to simply walk away from their obligation to provide emergency planning.

Public Service Department Commissioner Chris Recchia  refused to buy into Entergy’s  whopper of an assertion before the U.S. Senate commission on decommissioning that, as of sixteen months after the December shutdown, no further public risk will exist.

We have 3,800 fuels rods in a pool designed for 350. We don’t think that it’s safe to eliminate the emergency protection zones until the fuel is, at the minimum, in dry cask,” Recchia told the committee, which includes Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.

The Senator agrees and thinks its about time the NRC yields more power to individual states to negotiate their own terms regarding the decommissioning of nuclear plants that they have hosted.

“Currently a nuclear plant operator could adopt a decommissioning plan that ignores the needs and interests of the public and the state would have no recourse. That is fundamentally unfair and unreasonable,” Sanders said. “This is simply about ensuring that states have the opportunity to play a meaningful role in a decision that has enormous economic, environmental and community impacts.”

And citing another concerning situation of excessive spent fuel backlogs at San Onofre (California), Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) challenged NRC representative, Michael Weber about the dangers the stockpile poses to millions of Californians:

“Your own chairman wrote that if there’s an accident (at a spent fuel pool) it could be worse than Chernobyl,” she said.

Senators Sanders and Boxer are co-sponsoring a bill that would not allow the NRC to exempt nuclear plant operators from safety requirements while spent fuel remained on site and unprotected by dry cask storage.

Politically  opposed to regulation of any kind, for any reason, Republicans would like things to remain exactly as they are, with a completely toothless NRC serving the interests of the industry first and local communities a distant second.

Senator Sessions (R), of Alabama, argues that the NRC is doing a fine job; then adds, tellingly, that he thinks closing nuclear plants will “drive up” the cost of energy.

“The NRC has a proven record of success in regulating these matters,” said Sessions, a member of the committee. “We endanger a weak economy by driving up the cost of energy by closing up plants that could be productive for a decade or more.”

Uh, Senator, it is the power companies themselves who are making the economic decision to close nuclear facilities, which are no longer cost-efficient to operate.  They are answering the call of capitalism, at whose altar you are usually only too happy to worship.

Nevermind, Senator Sessions; go back to guarding the morals of Alabama’s poor folks and don’t trouble your snowy brow with economics.

When I was a girl of 19, I met Canadian author and environmental advocate, Farley Mowat and his wife Claire, to whom he was married from 1965 until his death May 7 at 92.

I was a humble office clerk at Classic’s Books in Montreal and had the mixed blessing of meeting a few luminaries of the literary world as they passed amongst us lesser beings in the course of normal business.  

Chief amongst those experiences was a lunchtime encounter with Mordecai Richler, who caught me minding the phones alone at my desk and demanded entry to my boss’s office.  When I inquired as to his business, Mr. Richler drew himself to his full height and asked indignantly,

“Don’t you even know who I am?”

I admitted that I did not; and when he told me and I was still no further enlightened, was subjected to a tongue lashing that drew my boss from his office to sweep Mr. Richler into his room with great apology and recriminations toward the peon.  

I was an American kid who had read “Catcher in the Rye” in high school, rather than “The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz;” and furthermore, I was just obeying orders.  

That was the single most humiliating experience among many humiliating experiences at that miserable job.

The year was 1969.

One of my happier experiences that same year was the visit by Mr. Mowat and his supremely kind and patient wife.  They were promoting a minor book in his prolific career, “The Boat Who Wouldn’t Float,” but he was already well-known to me for “Never Cry Wolf.”

As I recall, Mr. Mowat was loud and colorful in his red kilt, but pretty jovial.  We were quietly told, by the shop manager, that he was extremely shy and required a bottle of rum (?) to be supplied at every book signing to bolster him for the press of public attention.  Mrs. Mowat was friendly and appreciative of everyone’s efforts to make Mr. Mowat feel comfortable and relaxed, gently admonishing him when she felt he might be getting carried away.  He took it well.

Sympathetic to wolves, mostly nice to people and a booming voice of concern for the environment while the majority of us were still cutting teeth, Farley Mowat was a complex character who lived and died according to his own terms.  

The fact that Claire remained with him, through thick and thin for fifty years, is the best testimonial any man could wish for.

Thank you, Farley Mowat, for your lifetime of service to the environment.

Interesting that real estate mogul Tony Pomerleau is pulling out of his role in other real estate mogul Bill Stenger’s EB-5 “Fantasyland” up in the Northeast Kingdom.

Mr. Pomerleau is apparently tired of saying, “Show me the money.”

It isn’t the first hint that things may not be going exactly as hyped by Mr. Stenger, the Governor, and the Governor’s former campaign manager, Alex MacLean, who left the Governor’s office to spearhead Stenger’s pet project.

We on GMD are not at all surprised. Check the comments thread on BP’s 2013 diary! There was much to be concerned about in this all-upside tale of easy money and prosperity for all.  

Could this have anything to do with the 2013 “flapette” in Stenger’s relationship with the EB-5 program?

One can only speculate.

It comes as no surprise to followers of the F-35 “stealth” siting strategy for Burlington, that significant information about sound and safety impacts from the super jet has only seen the light of day after the “decision” was made to accept its location at the urban airport.

The long and short of it appears to be that the Airforce plans to “mitigate” those impacts with exactly the same measures as it has taken for the F-16’s which are currently based at the airport.

Quoted directly from the Plan (attached at the end of this diary, minus the tables):

F-35A aircraft operations at Burlington AGS will use existing airspace units and ranges in a manner consistent with current F-16 operations.

But the F-35 is no F-16.

The F-35 will be up to four-times louder than the F-16; and, when it comes to Burlington airport in 2020, the plane will still be at a significantly increased risk for crashing, due to its lack of air experience.  The F-16 had over a million flight-hours logged before it was sited in an urban center, which substantially reduced that risk for the Burlington community.

In his press release, siting opponent James Marc Leas suggests a number of mitigations that might address some of the increased impacts from the F-35, but do not appear in the plan:

Will thousands of houses be sound insulated? Will air conditioning systems be installed so windows need not be opened in summer? No such mitigation for thousands of families is mentioned in the plan.

Will children and elderly be warned in advance of flights and told not to go outside during those times? Nothing in the plan.

Will potential buyers be notified that property in the high noise zones is considered by the US Government to be “unsuitable for residential use.” Not in the plan.

Will thousands of homes have to be purchased and more communities destroyed–like the part of South Burlington near the airport?

The last remains an open question.

Changes in operational parameters developed by the AF in advance of basing the aircraft in Burlington will inform the 158 FW/F-35PIO as to potential local operational mitigation measures that may be evaluated. Performance and other characteristics may also change as the aircraft is adapted to flying conditions at Burlington AGS. Additional noise modeling will be conducted by NGB after local operations mature,and the resulting noise contours and related impacts will be compared to those in the FEIS.

Small comfort to the communities that have already been persuaded to acquiesce to the siting with promises of overarching benignity.

It appears that South Burlington may have bought itself a pig in a poke.

F-35A OPERATIONAL BASING MITIGATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN

On 2 December, 2013, the United States Air Force (Air Force) issued a Record of Decision (ROD) for the F-35A Operational Basing Final Environmental Impact Statement, September 2013 (FEIS) (Federal Register, Vol.78, No.193, EIS No.20130295, pg. 61845, October 4, 2013). The ROD documents the Air Force’s decision to beddown 18 F-35A primary aircraft assigned (PAA) at the Burlington, Vermont Air Guard Station (AGS). The Air Force is mandated by Title 32 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 989 (32 CFR 989) to prepare a Mitigation Plan (MP) for each ROD that contains mitigation measures. The 2 December 2013 ROD contains mitigation measures and management actions, which are also referenced in the FEIS. Since these mitigation measures and management actions have the effect of reducing potential environmental consequences, it is necessary and appropriate to ensure these actions are implemented as part of the basing of the F-35A at the Burlington AGS. This plan will be referred to herein as the Mitigation and Management Plan (MMP).

The objective of this MMP is to ensure that actions to avoid or mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts are implemented during construction and operation of the project. In accordance with the requirements of 32 CFR 989.22(d), this MMP was prepared to ensure that mitigation measures and management actions identified in the FEIS and the ROD for this action are implemented in an effective and timely manner and that identified impacts are avoided or mitigated. This MMP identifies organizations responsible for funding and implementing the mitigation measure/management action, and a completion date is identified for each.

The ROD acknowledges that, given the relative immaturity of the F-35 program, identification of new data and information relative to the F-35A may arise and it is possible that the impacts identified in the FEIS (Table 2-12) and the effectiveness of prescribed management and mitigation measures may be different from those expected. Consequently, new information may become available, or the effectiveness of mitigation measures may be different than expected. To accommodate for this, the ROD requires that this MMP incorporate an adaptive management program in accordance with the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) mitigation and monitoring guidance, and other legal and generally accepted practices. Section IV of this MMP describes the adaptive management program to be implemented for this action.

I. RESPONSIBLE PARTIES

The Air Force, as the lead agency, has overall responsibility for ensuring that commitments outlined in the ROD and this MMP are carried out. In practice, the majority of management actions and mitigation measures will be developed and implemented at the base level, with support as required by the Air Force and the National Guard Bureau (NGB). The 158th Fighter Wing (158 FW) of the Vermont Air National Guard (VTANG) operates at the Burlington AGS, and the 134th Fighter Squadron (134 FS) is the only operational flying squadron on base. The 158 FW incorporates a mature and highly successful active duty association as part of the Air Force’s Total Force Enterprise (TFE).

F-35A Operational Basing Environmental Impact Statement Burlington AGS Mitigation Plan 18 April 2014 Page 1Responsible parties for each mitigation measure and management action are identified in Table 1 of this document. The 158 FW F-35 Program Integration Office (F-35PIO), Operations Group (OG), Civil Engineering Squadron (CES) and Environmental Management (EM) office are the key organizations responsible for implementation of specific actions. The 158 FW leadership will direct, assign accountability for and track the results of mitigation measures and management actions through the base Environment, Safety and Occupational Health Council-Installation Safety Council (ESOHC-ISC) and by incorporation of these activities into the Environmental Management System (EMS) maintained at the base.

II. MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS

The Air Force will beddown one PAA squadron of 18 F-35As under the 2 December 2013 ROD at Burlington AGS. The AGS is collocated with the Burlington International Airport (BIAP), a civilian airport that operates primarily under Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) rules and regulations. The most significant environmental impacts associated with basing F-35A aircraft at Burlington AGS are anticipated to be related to noise generated during operation of the aircraft. Current mitigation measures and management actions in place for F-16 operations will continue as F-35A operations begin, and additional mitigation measures will be assessed and implemented before and after arrival of the new aircraft. This will necessarily be an evolving process, as the local operating procedures for the F-35A and noise abatement procedures that may be implemented will not be fully developed until the aircraft begins to be flown at the Burlington AGS, which is anticipated to be in the year 2020. Table 1 of this MMP lists the specific mitigation measures and management actions related to noise abatement that are currently employed, and outlines procedures and time frames for evaluation of additional mitigation measures that will be assessed upon arrival of the aircraft at the Burlington AGS. Additional operational changes that may mitigate noise impacts will be evaluated for effectiveness and reviewed to assure they do not result in negative training or safety implications. Management actions for potential environmental impacts not related to noise are also listed in Table 1.

Construction associated with beddown of a total of 18 F-35A aircraft primarily consists of renovations and upgrades to existing facilities and installation of new utilities on previously developed land at the Burlington AGS. Construction is needed to upgrade existing utility infrastructure, aircraft hangars, maintenance shops, simulator facilities and associated work areas. Construction will occur primarily within the highly developed and previously disturbed flight line area and adjacent buildings. F-35A aircraft operations at Burlington AGS will use existing airspace units and ranges in a manner consistent with current F-16 operations.

Pages 5 through 7 of the ROD list management actions to avoid or reduce potential environmental impacts, and each is addressed in Table 1 of this MMP.

III. METHOD FOR ACCOMPLISHING MANAGEMENT ACTIONS

Noise related mitigation measures fall into two general categories at Burlington AGS: 1) operational measures directly implemented and maintained by the 158 FW (also referred to as “local noise abatement procedures”) and 2) noise mitigation measures that are developed and implemented under the Burlington IAP’s Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) required by 14 CFR Part 150, and administered by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

Local noise abatement procedures are codified in Fighter Wing Instructions (FWIs) and other base level standard operating procedure documents such as the local In-Flight Guide. 158 FW aircraft operations are closely tracked, counted and analyzed and are continually assessed for compliance with established procedures. Local noise abatement procedures can be modified and adapted to some extent as new information is received, including input from the local community. Changes to preferred runway operations, modified ground track departure procedures, and adjusting of pattern operations and altitudes are examples of operational elements that can be reviewed and potentially modified by 158 OG personnel to mitigate noise impacts on surrounding communities. Flight, ground and weapons safety are always considered when assessing potential changes to mitigate noise, and safety cannot be compromised to mitigate noise.

The 158 FW participates in the Burlington IAP’s noise mapping, NCP updates and 14 CFR Part 150 compliance process. In some cases, as referenced in the ROD, voluntary mitigation measures undertaken by military organizations at Burlington AGS are referenced within the NCP update and FAA’s resulting Part 150 Record of Approval memorandum. The 158 FW will continue to participate in the Burlington IAP Part 150 process to the maximum extent required to effectively coordinate, implement and continually assess noise mitigation measures and management actions. It is noted that the 158 FW, NGB and Air Force cannot control the timing or final content of the NCP and Part 150 process, as FAA has jurisdiction over the process.

Non-noise related impacts are also addressed in Table 1, and can be effectively managed using existing 158 FW environmental management, safety and occupational health procedures, and continued compliance with applicable federal and State of Vermont regulations, Air Force Instructions, and Executive Orders.

An adaptive management program as described in the CEQ Memorandum titled, “Appropriate Use of Mitigation and Monitoring and Clarifying the Appropriate Use of Mitigated Findings of No Significant Impact” dated 14 January 2011, will be incorporated into this MMP, and is described in the next section.

IV. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (AMP)

The ROD acknowledges that, given the relative immaturity of the F-35 program, identification of new data and information relative to the F-35A may arise and it is possible that the impacts identified in the FEIS (Table 2-12) and the effectiveness of prescribed management and mitigation measures may be different from those expected. Consequently, new information may become available, or the effectiveness of mitigation measures may be different than expected. Adaptive management techniquewill be utilized to identify additional management action refinement, and will be compared to information provided in the FEIS.

The 14 January 2011 CEQ memorandum referenced above provides guidance to assist agencies in assuring that mitigation commitments are being performed as described in the FEIS and ROD, and advises that an adaptive management program can provide a mechanism to adjust and refine mitigation measures if needed to achieve projected environmental outcomes. The CEQ memo states on page 11, “For mitigation commitments that warrant rigorous oversight, an Environmental Management System (EMS), or other data management system could serve as a useful way to integrate monitoring efforts effectively. Other possible monitoring methods include agency-specific environmental monitoring, compliance assessment, and auditing systems.”

The 158 FW maintains an active EMS that follows the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14001 EMS model to monitor and continually improve the Wing’s environmental performance. ISO 14001 is an industry standard management program that provides practical tools for organizations looking to identify and control their environmental impact and constantly improve their environmental performance. The 158 FW EMS targets specific significant environmental aspects of its operations, and annually runs through a cycle of an internal audit by the 158 FW EMS Cross Functional Team (CFT) and a subsequent Management Review by the 158 FW Environment, Safety and Occupational Health Council-Installation Safety Council (ESOHC-ISC). The base ESOHC-ISC consists of all base commanders and other key decision makers and supervisors, and action items that result from annual audits and management reviews are assigned to a responsible party and results tracked at semi-annual meetings. Incorporating this F-35 MMP into the 158 FW EMS will assure that the mitigation measures and management actions listed in Table 1 are implemented, tracked, assessed, and modified or expanded as necessary to meet the intent of minimizing the environmental impacts of the basing action.

As stated above, the 158 FW will continue to participate in the Burlington IAP’s noise mapping, NCP updates and 14 CFR Part 150 compliance process. This process is typically repeated on a 5 to 10 year cycle, and is itself an adaptive process. Noise modeling and mapping done during the Part 150 process will provide the data on which future noise mitigation and management actions will be proposed by Burlington IAP and ultimately approved by FAA as part of an updated NCP. There are well-defined public involvement requirements during the development and implementation of the NCP, and the 158 FW will participate in this public process to the extent requested by the Burlington IAP Manager.

The F-35A aircraft is currently flying under a restricted flight envelope at an early stage of overall life- cycle development. As the Air Force gains more experience flying the F-35A prior to basing the aircraft at Burlington AGS, operational parameters such as airspeed and power setting requirements will be refined. Changes in these parameters will be compared to those used in the FEIS, and the AF and NGB will evaluate how these changes would affect the noise contours calculated for Burlington AGS. Changes in operational parameters developed by the AF in advance of basing the aircraft in Burlington will inform the 158 FW/F-35PIO as to potential local operational mitigation measures that may be evaluated. Performance and other characteristics may also change as the aircraft is adapted to flying conditions at Burlington AGS. Additional noise modeling will be conducted by NGB after local operations mature, and the resulting noise contours and related impacts will be compared to those in the FEIS. Refer to Table 1, item numbers 5 and 6 for more specific mitigation and management actions.

Any changes in the construction schedule would have an effect on completion of the actions for those specific projects (Table 1).

I’ve been visiting family in Oregon.  While I was gone, a very dear friend who was a keen reader of GMD passed away.  

Although she was born in St. Albans City 87 years ago, and ended her life in the same town, the passing of this tireless civic volunteer will not be marked by the City in any way other than with relief; for Marie Limoges was the articulate and scolding voice of civic and environmental responsibility, whose letters to the editor seldom failed to find their mark.

We, her many friends and co-advocates will gather to remember her at her home this Saturday afternoon.

My tribute sent to the Messenger:

With the passing of Marie Limoges, I have lost a hero.  

She was one of the most intelligent and perceptive people I’ve had the pleasure of knowing. It was to Marie that I turned countless times in the recent past to discuss ideas large and small and benefit from her keen observations.

Through a lifetime of personal challenges, Marie raised a family on her own, had an impressive career in the civil service and never ceased to educate herself, remaining current to the end of her life.

She was particularly devoted to the study of history and archaeology, and she was always proud to be an adventurous outlier.

Some of her best personal stories reached back to her days living overseas in postwar Japan, where she was not content to remain cloistered on the base like a typical officer’s wife, but ventured out into the community to make new friends and learn about the lives of the Japanese people.

That was typical of Marie, who never chose the path of least resistance, but rather plunged headfirst into new ideas and experiences.

Her interests were grounded in human history, and she even worked archaeological digs later in life; but her mind was evergreen and razor sharp.

Marie’s zeal as a sustainable living activist only grew with age and physical incapacity.  She embraced her own mortality and sighted along the lines of the future, concerning herself with our quality of life long after she has left us.

Access to the internet breathed new-life and possibility into Marie when she was no longer physically well enough to move about freely.  It allowed her to remain informed and in lively conversation with her many friends and colleagues in the

Responsible Development movement.  Her frequent letters-to-the-editor were exemplary, both for their vigor and for their articulation.

If she leaves us with one single lesson, it is that we are never too old to have a stake in the future.

A reading of this diary could benefit from the perspective leant by an earlier GMD diary about Bob Hartwell.

_____________________________________________________________________________

What’s up with Senator Bob Hartwelll of Bennington?

Seven Days is reporting that Hartwell, who chairs the Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee doubts the very existence of human influenced climate change!

Quoth Senator Harwell:

“To suggest that mankind is causing the whole climate to shift, that’s a big reach,” he added. “I don’t think anybody’s ever proved that.”

Continuing his conversation with Seven Days’ Paul Heintz, Hartwell goes on to parrot nearly every right wing talking point on the subject.

Where are we? Texas?

This guy is a Democrat; and he chairs the committee that shapes all of Vermont’s policies with regard to energy.  

As VPIRG’s Paul Burns astutely observes:

“It helps to explain, perhaps, why the chairman has such a hostile view toward renewable energy development. I guess, in his mind, you can’t solve a problem that doesn’t exist.”

That a climate change denier occupies the key position on Vermont’s Senate energy committee confirms that even a whopping Democratic majority is capable of significant dysfunction when the Governor is more concerned with his own agenda for self-advancement than with building a sound progressive policy legacy to leave behind.