ACTION NEEDED: MARINE MAMMALS WILL DIE IN NAVY WARFARE TESTING PROGRAM

By Rosalind Peterson
March 28, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

The United States Navy requests permissions from the United States Department of Commerce (NOAA), to kill thirty two species of marine mammals over five years in their Pacific Ocean Warfare testing program.

The Navy and the U.S. Department of Defense have decided that their Northwest Training Range Complex, in the State of Washington, should be expanded, and have devised a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), dated December 2008, for public review and comment. The expansion of their area of operation will include the State of Washington, the State of Oregon, part of the state of Idaho, and Northern California. The final date for public comment is April 13, 2009.

These designated areas will also include large areas of the Pacific Ocean from California to the State of Washington and areas along the border between the United States and Canada. (The extent map designating this program area also extends throughout Northern California to the San Francisco Bay Area under an “Extent Map Warning Area” designation.) Once implemented there is no date specified in E.I.S. for this Navy Warfare Testing Program to end although various documents show that this is a five-year Navy Warfare Testing program.

The U.S. Commander of the Pacific Fleet has given American citizens and residents of these states only a very short time to comment on their draft EIS: Published on December 30, 2008, with the final public comment “stay of execution” deadline moved to April 13, 2009. U.S. citizens in four states demanded this extension and more public hearings and are opposing this catastrophic program. (This document is approximately 1,000+/- pages in length with attachments.)

The United States Navy has also published an application, as an addendum to their program, in the U.S. Federal Register, dated March 11, 2009. This application from the Navy “…requests authorization to take individuals of 32 species of marine mammals during upcoming Navy Warfare testing and training to be conducted in the NWTR areas (off the Pacific coasts of Washington, Oregon, and northern California) over the course of 5 years…” Final public comment date is April 10, 2009.

The Navy Warfare Testing Program will “…utilize mid- and high frequency active sonar sources and explosive detonations. These sonar and explosive sources will be utilized during Antisubmarine Warfare (ASW) Tracking Exercises, Mine Avoidance Training, Extended Echo Ranging and Improved Extended Echo Ranging (EER/IEER) events, Missile Exercises, Gunnery Exercises, Bombing Exercises, Sinking Exercises, and Mine Warfare Training…”

According to Navy Public Relations Officer Sheila Murray the United States Navy is already conducting warfare testing programs throughout the United States. During the last two years, it is alleged that the Navy has issued nearly identical environmental impact statements for Navy Warfare Training Range Complexes in the following areas: the Mariana Islands, the Hawaiian Islands, Jacksonville Florida, Cherry Point, North Carolina, the Gulf of Alaska and Southern California. It is unknown, at this time, how many marine mammals have been killed in these programs since their inception.

The Pacific and Atlantic Ocean belong to all the people of the world not just the United States. This “taking” of marine mammals negatively impacts the entire ecology of our oceans and the life in them which feeds large numbers of people and other species around the world. Now the United States government has decided that California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, and the Pacific Ocean marine life in those areas, are expendable in order to test more war weapons of mass destruction. It should be noted that the list of toxic chemicals is a long one as noted in the Navy E.I.S. Depleted uranium, red and white phosphorus, and a whole host of chemicals known to be toxic not only to man, but to marine life, are being served up on the “Navy Warfare Chemical Menu” that will contaminate our air, water, and soil.

White Phosphorus is just one of the chemicals on Navy Toxic Menu: Berkowitz et.al (1981), in assessing the potential hazards associated with the use of phosphorus smoke munitions, reported that White Phosphorus residues in aquatic systems can be extremely toxic. Berkowitz stated that the deposition of washout of…White Phosphorus, especially in water bodies may create exposure risks to resident finfish, invertebrates and waterfowl, even if resultant White Phosphorus concentrations are in the low ppb range. 1996)

Water Quality Criteria for White Phosphorus – Authors” Kowetha A. Davidson; Patricia S. Hovatter, Catherine F. Sigmon, Oak Ridge National Lab TN: Abstract: Data obtained from a review of the literature concerning the environmental fate and aquatic and mammalian toxicity of white phosphorus are presented…Laboratory and field studies indicate that white phosphorus is quite toxic to aquatic organisms, with fish being the most sensitive…bioaccumulation is rapid and extensive, with the greatest uptake in the liver and muscle of fish and the hepatopancreas of lobster…other toxic effects to aquatic organism include cardiovascular and histological changes. (1987) (White Phosphorus is an airborne contaminant – used in fog oil and smoke obscurants.)

Mammalian Toxicology and Toxicity to Aquatic Organism of White Phosphorus and ‘Phossy Water’ by Authors Dickinson Burrows; Jack C. Dacre: AWARE INC Nashville TN – Abstract: “…white phosphorus is highly toxic to both experimental animals and man…white phosphorus is also highly toxic to aquatic animals…”

Concerned citizens in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and California, along with citizens across the United States are protesting this action by the United States government and the United States Navy. Almost all of our elected representatives are silent when it comes to opposing this disastrous program. The major news media has elected not to cover this story leaving coverage to a few small newspapers located in remote areas.

A Navy public hearing will be held in Mendocino County, California on Tuesday, March 31, 2009.

We hope that everyone will join us in demanding that the current ongoing Navy weapons program in Oregon is suspended permanently and that the new proposed Navy Warfare Testing Program expansion is stopped. Public protests should be filed with your elected representatives, the President of the United States, and to both the United States Navy and NOAA (United States Department of Commerce).

1, United States Navy Environment Impact Statement (Download one chapter at a time – works the best.)

2, U.S. Navy Public Comment Form Online

3, Write to: Naval Facilities Engineering Command Northwest,
1101 Tautog Circle, Suite 203
Silverdale, Washington 98315
ATTN: Mrs. Kimberly Kier – NWTRC EIS
Deadline: April 13, 2009

4, NOAA Public Comments Address to:
Michael Payne, Chief, Permits Conservation and Education Division,
Office of Protected Resources National Marine Fisheries Service
1315 East-West Highway,
Silver Spring, MD 20910–3225.
Deadline: April 10, 2009

5, E-Mail Rosalind Peterson (707) 485-7520 For More Information click here:

6, PETITION TO STOP NAVY PROGRAM:

7, The Peterson Perspective

8, Northwest Training Range Complex Draft EIS/OEIS

9, Northwest Training Range Complex Draft EIS/OEIS

The following Notice is in the United States Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 11, 2009 / Notices 10557:

“DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RIN 0648–XN87 Taking and Importing Marine Mammals;

Navy Training and Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation Activities Conducted within the Northwest Training Range Complex

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice; receipt of application for letter of authorization; request for comments and information.

SUMMARY: NMFS has received a request from the U.S. Navy for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to military readiness training activities and research, development, testing and evaluation (RDT&E) to be conducted in the Northwest Training Range Complex (NWTRC) for the period beginning September 2009 and ending September 2014.

1 - NOAA Definition: “TAKE”
2 - Defined under the MMPA as "harass, hunt, capture, kill or collect, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, kill or collect."
3 - Defined under the ESA as "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct."

Pursuant to the implementing regulations of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is announcing our receipt of the Navy’s request for the development and implementation of regulations governing the incidental taking of marine mammals and inviting information, suggestions, and comments on the Navy’s application and request.

DATES: Comments and information to NMFS must be received no later than April 10, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the application should be addressed to:

Michael Payne, Chief, Permits, Conservation and Education Division, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service
1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910–3225.
The mailbox address for providing email comments is PR1.0648–XN87@noaa.gov.
NMFS is not responsible for e-mail comments sent to
10558 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 46 / Wednesday, March 11, 2009 / Notices addresses other than the one provided here. Comments sent via e-mail, including all attachments, must not exceed a 10–megabyte file size.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jolie Harrison, Office of Protected Resources,
NMFS, (301) 713–2289, ext. 166. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Availability

A copy of the Navy’s application may be obtained by writing to the address specified above (See ADDRESSES), telephoning the contact listed above (see FOR FURTHER CONTACT INFORMATION).

The Navy’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for NWTRC was made available to the public on December 26, 2008, and may be viewed here.

With respect to military readiness activities, the MMPA defines ‘‘harassment’’ as:

(i) any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild [Level A Harassment]; or (ii) any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered [Level B Harassment].

Summary of Request

In September, 2008, NMFS received an application from the Navy requesting authorization to take individuals of 32 species of marine mammals (4 pinniped and 28 cetacean) incidental to upcoming training and RDT&E activities to be conducted in the NWTRC (off the coasts of Washington, Oregon, and northern California) over the course of 5 years.

These training and RDT&E activities are classified as military readiness activities. The Navy states that these training activities may expose some of the marine mammals present in the area to sound from various mid-frequency and high-frequency active tactical sonar sources or to pressure from underwater detonations. The Navy requests authorization to take individuals of 32 species of marine mammals by Level B Harassment.

Specified Activities

In the application submitted to NMFS, the Navy requests authorization to take marine mammals incidental to conducting training events and RDT&E utilizing mid- and high frequency active sonar sources and explosive detonations. These sonar and explosive sources will be utilized during Antisubmarine Warfare (ASW) Tracking Exercises, Mine Avoidance Training, Extended Echo Ranging and Improved Extended Echo Ranging (EER/IEER) events, Missile Exercises, Gunnery Exercises, Bombing Exercises, Sinking Exercises, and Mine Warfare Training.

Table 1–1 in the application lists the activity types, the equipment and platforms involved, and the duration and potential locations of the activities.

Information Solicited Interested persons may submit information, suggestions, and comments concerning the Navy’s request (see ADDRESSES). All information, suggestions, and comments related to the Navy’s NWTRC request and NMFS’ potential development and implementation of regulations governing the incidental taking of marine mammals by the Navy’s NWTRC activities will be considered by NMFS in developing, if appropriate, the most effective regulations governing the issuance of letters of authorization.

Dated: March 6, 2009. P. Michael Payne, Chief, Division of Permits, Conservation, and Education, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.

© 2009 - Rosalind Peterson - All Rights Reserved

In 1995, Rosalind, now retired, became a certified California United State Department of Agriculture (USDA) Farm Service Agency Agriculture Crop Loss Adjustor working in more than ten counties throughout California. Rosalind has a BA degree from Sonoma State University in Environmental Studies & Planning (ENSP), with emphasis on using solar power, photosynthesis, agriculture, and crop production.

Between 1989 and 1993 Rosalind worked as an Agricultural Technologist for the Mendocino County Department of Agriculture. After leaving Mendocino County she took a position with the USDA Farm Service Agency as a Program Assistant in Mendocino, Sonoma, and the Salinas County Offices, where she worked until becoming certified as a crop loss adjustor for the State.

E-Mail: info@californiaskywatch.com

http://www.newswithviews.com/Peterson/rosalind115.htm

Feds undercut ammo supply

Feds undercut ammo supply

But Defense policy reversed after intervention by 2 Montana senators

Posted: March 17, 2009
9:00 pm Eastern

By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Fired brass shell casings

Responding to two Democratic senators representing outraged private gun owners, the Department of Defense announced last night it has scrapped a new policy that would deplete the supply of ammunition by requiring destruction of fired military cartridge brass.

The policy already had taken a bite out of the nation's stressed ammunition supply, leaving arms dealers scrambling to find ammo for private gun owners.

Mark Cunningham, a legislative affairs representative with the Defense Logistics Agency, explained in an e-mail last night to the office of Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., that the Department of Defense had placed small arms cartridge cases on its list of sensitive munitions items as part of an overall effort to ensure national security is not jeopardized in the sale of any Defense property.

The small arms cases were identified as a senstive item and were held pending review of policy, he said.

"Upon review, the Defense Logistics Agency has determined the cartridge cases could be appropriately placed in a category of government property allowing for their release for sale," Cunningham wrote.

The Defense Department liaison was responding to a letter yesterday to the Defense Logistic Agency's Vice Admiral Alan S. Thompson from Tester and fellow Montana Democrat Sen. Max Baucus. The senators argued "prohibiting the sale of fired military brass would reduce the supply of ammunition – preventing individual gun owners from fully exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. We urge you to address this situation promptly."

One of the companies that brought attention to the issue is Georgia Arms, which for the last 15 years has been purchasing fired brass casings from the Department of Defense and private government surplus liquidators. The military collects the discarded casings from fired rounds, then sells them through liquidators to companies like Georgia Arms that remanufacture the casings into ammunition for the law enforcement and civilian gun owner communities.

But earlier this month, Georgia Arms received a canceled order, informed by its supplier that the government now requires fired brass casings be mutilated, in other words, destroyed to a scrap metal state.

The policy change, handed down from the Department of Defense through the Defense Logistics Agency, cut a supply leg out from underneath ammunition manufacturers.

The policy compelled Georgia Arms to cancel all sales of .223 and .308 ammunition, rounds used, respectively, in semi-automatic and deer hunting rifles, until further notice. Sharch Manufacturing, Inc. had announced the same cancellation of its .223 and .308 brass reloading components.

"They just reclassified brass to allow destruction of it, based on what?" Georgia Arms owner Larry Haynie asked WND. "We've been 'going green' for the last dozen years, and brass is one of the most recyclable materials out there. A cartridge case can be used over and over again. And now we're going to destroy it based on what? We don't want the civilian public to have it? It's a government injustice."

As WND reported, firearm sales have spiked since the election of a perceived anti-gun president, and Americans stockpiling bullets have produced a stressed ammunition market.

The Orlando Sentinel reports months of steady, heavy buying have left gun dealers in Florida facing shortages of ammunition.

"The survivalist in all of us comes out," John Ritz, manager of a Florida shooting range, told the Sentinel. "It's more about protecting what you have."

"People are just stockpiling," said a spokeswoman for Georgia Arms, which has seen bullet sales jump 100 percent since the election. "A gun is just like a car. If you can't get gas, you can't use it."

WND contacted the Defense Logistics Agency, the Department of Defense's largest combat support agency, several times seeking comment or explanation for the policy change but received none.

The National Rifle Association confirmed to WND that the DLA had been instructed to require the scrapping of the brass casings but declined further comment.

Other gun advocates, however, sounded off on the issue, eyeing the change in government policy with suspicion and filling the blogosphere with speculation that the effects of the policy change may be deliberate.

"It is an end-run around Congress. They don't need to try to ban guns – they don't need to fight a massive battle to attempt gun registration, or limit 'assault' weapon sales," writes firearm instructor and author Gordon Hutchinson on his The Shootist blog. "Nope. All they have to do is limit the amount of ammunition available to the civilian market, and when bullets dry up, guns will be useless."

A writer named Owen at the Boots & Sabers blog suspected the policy change was an effort by an anti-gun administration to raise the cost of ammunition.

"This policy didn't come out of the blue," wrote Owen. "The Commander in Chief is clearly sending a message to gun owners that they should be paying more for ammunition. If he can't do it through regulatory action, he'll do it by forcing ammunition manufacturers to spend more on production."

Hutchinson reports Georgia Arms was manufacturing over 1 million rounds of .223 ammunition every month, but without the ability to purchase expended military ammunition, the company might have been forced to lay off up to half its workforce.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92095

Related stories:

Obama seeks 'assault weapons' ban

Is bill lying in wait to ban handguns?

Big Brother's new target: Tracking of all firearms

Congress' plan would let AG 'ban guns at will'

Group asks states to track citizens' ammo

Ban lifted on loaded guns in national parks

Supremes: Individuals have right to bear arms

Obama election triggers national gun rush

US Navy/DOD to use 4 NW States & ALL Inhabitants for Weapons Testing!!

US NAVY, DOD AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY FOR 4 STATE WEAPONS TESTING RANGE

US Navy and DOD wants to use the State of Washington, all of the State of Oregon, part of the state of Idaho, Northern California, and the Pacific Ocean from California to Washington State as a weapons training range!!!  

They've  decided, without the public's consent, to use public lands, the Pacific Ocean, private property, wildlife, and humans as test subjects for warfare testing in four states.

 

By Rosalind Peterson
February 21, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

The United States Navy and the U.S. Department of Defense have decided that their Northwest Training Range Complex, in the State of Washington, should be expanded, and have devised a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), dated December 2008, for public review and comment. The expansion of their area of operation will include all of the State of Washington, all of the State of Oregon, part of the state of Idaho, and Northern California. This area will also include large areas of the Pacific Ocean from California to Washington. (The map designating this program area also extends throughout Northern California to the San Francisco Bay Area under a “warning area” designation.)

The U.S. Commander of the Pacific Fleet has given American citizens and residents of these states only a very short time to comment on their draft EIS: Published on December 30, 2008, with a final public comment deadline extended to March 11, 2009, this document is approximately 1,000+/- pages in length with attachments. In addition to a short comment time the Navy limited public hearings to five, with only one held in Oregon, one in California and no hearings in Idaho. The Navy has allegedly failed to place information about this EIS in major newspapers or inform our elected representatives about this program.

Thus, citizens in California, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington are asking for a realistic extension of time to read, study, and comment on this decision by the Navy and the Department of Defense, past the March 11, 2009, deadline. It should be noted that most elected representatives in California and Oregon were not aware of this EIS or the consequences of this action by the Navy.

The Navy has declared that this draft was distributed to our elected representatives. If so, then why haven’t our elected officials spoken up to defend our rights to be heard, required more public meetings and hearings in California, Washington, Idaho (where not one was held), and Oregon?

The U.S. Navy, the U.S. Department of Defense, and the Commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet have decided, without our consent, that that are going to use the Pacific Ocean off the Coast of California, Oregon and Washington and the land over four states to test weapons of war. They did not contact Senator Harry Reid of Nevada to obtain permission to use the Nevada Test Site for these warfare experiments. Instead they decided to use public lands, the Pacific Ocean, private property, wildlife, and humans as test subjects for warfare testing in four states.

The Navy also has decided to contaminate our air, water, and soils with the chemicals used in these programs. They fail to list many of the chemicals that are to be used in these programs. Thus, under the Freedom of Information Act, I am requesting a complete listing of all chemicals that will be used during these testing programs. It is easy for the Navy EIS to state that they can mitigate for such toxic usage but fail to disclose a complete listing of said chemicals. Also copies of contamination studies conducted at other military test sites where contamination problems were found and at bases (like Fallon Air Force Base).

The draft EIS does not fully address the potential environmental impacts on multiple resources, like air quality, water resources, airborne acoustic environment (on land and in the ocean), biological resources, marine and terrestrial impacts and human health and safety. Without a complete understanding of their programs it is impossible to determine any impacts…thus, their EIS states that “…there are no significant impacts…” This statement is made throughout the entire document even though many of the chemicals used are highly toxic.

With the failure of the EIS to identify all of the air quality, water quality, and soils impacts of their programs this EIS appears to be a whitewash designed to stampede this program through as fast as the Navy can implement it. And in listing only a few of the EPA list of toxic chemicals that will be released by military aircraft (like jet fuel emissions), the Navy has avoided any discussion of negative impacts on air and water quality. It is not sufficient to state that our air is already polluted and that additional pollutants will make no difference in air quality.

There is a short listing of hazardous materials, air pollutants, and pollutants from munitions, expended materials, and radioactive materials to be used in this project. I am requesting a complete listing of all chemicals that will be used by the Navy, Air Force, and any other branch of the Department of Defense in this project. Inshore and offshore detonations may or may not be considered hazardous – however, until a complete listing of these chemicals is provided to the public there can be no public discussion of their hazard to public health, marine life, wildlife, public drinking water sources or our oceans. The avoidance of making this specific list public leads one to believe that these hazardous materials and chemicals are toxic and do pose environmental hazards.

It is interesting that Table ES-5 Summary of Effects (Page ES-16) – Hazardous Material does not list the name of any hazardous materials but tells the public that there is no problem with their use. How is it possible to have a summary table and list none of the chemicals to be used during the Navy program? They do note petroleum products, heavy metals, and combustion products but fail to list all of them along with the number of pounds to be used each year.

The public and marine life in the ocean will be subjected to various sonar and aviation noise, target noise, surface ship noise, weapons and target noise, EOD (no definition found), and underwater explosions. The Navy does admit that marine life will be harmed but harming our food supply, (fish like salmon), or the whales is not deemed important by the Navy, as they are expendable according to the EIS.

The Navy and the Department of Defense have decided that massive warfare expenditures for testing war products and weapons using marine life and the public as guinea pigs is in our best interest. And since a lot of the equipment and other items to be tested are experimental this leads one to believe that they are testing them on us for the first time to see how they work and if the public is harmed by their usage.

Just when did the citizens of the United States agree to be warfare test subjects when the Nevada Test Site and/or Area 51 which could be used for these tests? And why use the Pacific Ocean which is a migratory haven for our food supply and valuable marine life – including those that migrate along the Pacific Coast? And if this Navy project is approved and the health of the citizens, marine, or wildlife is threatened who will be held responsible for this action and its negative consequences?

The EIS does not give the public standing to say no to this project or the consequences of being used as guinea pigs during the testing. In addition, the EIS does not state how long the testing process will last – providing us with the information that once implemented testing could be conducted forever in these areas.

I am requesting, under the freedom of information act, answers to the above questions, listings of the chemicals used and their exact harm to the public, animals, marine life, water supplies, trees, agriculture, and soils. This includes information on whether or not depleted uranium, red and white phosphorus, weather modification and mitigation chemicals will be used, whether or not atmospheric testing will occur along with aviation over-flights and bombing runs. Will sonic booms rattle our homes and low flights of planes shake our houses and wake us up at night? I am also requesting complete documentation and information on Electronic Combat Training and how it will impact human health. Noise and electronic levels should also be made public.

My freedom of information act request also includes the following questions:

1 - Will aluminum coated fiberglass be used (CHAFF) and how many pounds will be released each year?

2 - What are the health effects of Chaff particulates on humans, wildlife, soil and water? Please provide a study on these human and wildlife health effects.

3 - Will weather modification or mitigation programs be initiated during the Navy program? If so, what chemicals will be used in this program?

4 - Will jets be allowed to fly at heights that leave persistent jet contrails that exacerbate global warming and change our climate (NASA Studies)?

5 - A complete listing of jet fuels to be used (+ additives), and the components of said jet fuel with information on the number of chemicals released and their impact on human health, agriculture, soils, water supplies, and wildlife. (Include JP-8, JP-10, and other new experimental jet fuels.

The Jet Emissions report is available online at the EPA Website.

6 - A complete study of depleted uranium showing human health and animal health effects.

7 - A complete study of the health effects of the compounds listed in Table 3.3-5 Page 3.3-11 and definitions of RDX and HMX (use and toxicity).

8 - Toxicity of Red and White Phosphorus – humans, wildlife, soils, water supplies, marine life.

9 - A complete listing of the propellants, explosives, pyrotechnics, chemical and riot agents, and smoke canisters (type of smoke and toxicity) is requested. And a complete listing of obscurants which will be used in these programs and their toxicity.

10 - How much money will Washington, Oregon, California and Idaho be reimbursed for hazardous waste disposal and other toxic site clean-up from the Navy and the Department of Defense? It is requested that the reimbursement be 100%.

11 - A complete listing and studies of the synergistic effects of all chemicals used in the Navy program with associated health effects. This includes cumulative and synergistic effects as well.

12 - Studies of the synergistic effects of project chemicals on bioaccumulation in fish and other marine food supplies.

13 - Will Maxwell MOAs (1, 2 & 3,) be used in this Navy Project? If yes, what will be the actions taken over this area by all branches of the military?

A rough study of the EIS leads one to believe that the Navy and the Department of Defense intends to leave behind a toxic pea soup of chemicals and other toxins in their wake along with the human health effects and dead marine life. Many areas of California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho would be contaminated from these experiments through airborne and water migration across these regions.

It also appears that nothing would be spared in testing weapons of war on the public (with the Nevada Test Site and Area 51 available for much of this testing and the Atlantic Ocean also available near Washington, D.C.); it appears that these Western States will be sacrificed for building and testing more weapons of mass destruction. Remember that sacrificing California, Washington, Oregon and Idaho is just the beginning…your state will be next.

I am requesting that the State of California be excluded from this Navy project. Citizens in all four states should say “no” to this proposed project and others like it.

Contact your elected representatives today and let them know how you feel about this project.

We are appealing to Congressman Mike Thompson, Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein to delay this project, allow more time for public comment, hold hearings in Mendocino County, CA, and to eventually oppose allowing California to become part of this costly, toxic warfare project.

For more information and copy of the U.S. Navy Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Comment Form.

© 2009 - Rosalind Peterson - All Rights Reserved

In 1995, Rosalind, now retired, became a certified California United State Department of Agriculture (USDA) Farm Service Agency Agriculture Crop Loss Adjustor working in more than ten counties throughout California. Rosalind has a BA degree from Sonoma State University in Environmental Studies & Planning (ENSP), with emphasis on using solar power, photosynthesis, agriculture, and crop production.

Between 1989 and 1993 Rosalind worked as an Agricultural Technologist for the Mendocino County Department of Agriculture. After leaving Mendocino County she took a position with the USDA Farm Service Agency as a Program Assistant in Mendocino, Sonoma, and the Salinas County Offices, where she worked until becoming certified as a crop loss adjustor for the State.

E-Mail: info@californiaskywatch.com

http://www.newswithviews.com/Peterson/rosalind114.htm

Defense (Military) Department Announces Civilian Expeditionary Workforce

(Our military has nothing to do with the defense of this nation any longer. It is nothing more than a global military police force, so let's not be fooled by that word "defense".)

Obama's promise of a civilian security force is set in motion

Steve Watson Infowars.net Friday, Jan 30th, 2009

The Defense Department has established a "civilian expeditionary workforce" that will see American civilians trained and equipped to deploy overseas in support of worldwide military missions.

The move is seen by some as an initial step towards fulfilling president Obama's promise to form a civilian national security force as powerful as the U.S. military.

The intent of the program “is to maximize the use of the civilian workforce to allow military personnel to be fully utilized for operational requirements,” according to a Defense Department report.

The program was officially implemented one week ago, on the 23rd January, when Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England signed Defense Department Directive 1404.10 (PDF), which provides a summation of the duties the workforce will undertake.

The directive, which is effective immediately, states that civilian employees of the DoD will be asked to sign agreements stating that they will deploy in support of military missions for up to two years if needed.

Workforce members, who are divided into different designations under the directive, will serve overseas in support of humanitarian, reconstruction and, if necessary, combat-support missions.

"If the employee does not wish to deploy, every effort will be made to reassign the employee to a nondeploying position." the DoD report states.

While the directive suggests that the DoD will at first seek volunteers to serve in the civilian workforce, section 4, subsection (e) paragraph (2) states:

Management retains the authority to direct and assign civilian employees, either voluntarily, involuntarily, or on an unexpected basis to accomplish the DoD mission.

In addition, the directive states that all workforce members will be subject to physical and psychological testing, both before and after deployment.

The directive refers several times to the civilian workforce as a component of the "Total Force", which it describes as "The organizations, units, and individuals that compromise the DoD resources for implementing the National Security Strategy." This "Total Force" includes active, reserve and retired military personnel in addition to DoD civilian employees.

Back in July 2008, Barack Obama, then the presidential front runner, called for a "civilian national security force" as powerful as the U.S. military.

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national (more like global) security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded," Obama told a Colorado Springs audience.

The comments that were ignored by the vast majority of the corporate media but were found to be troubling by some independent journalists who compared the idea to the formation of the Nazi Hitler Youth.

Fears of "youth brigades" or civilian stasi style units increased following Obama's appointment of Rahm Emanuel to chief-of staff.

In his book, "The Plan: Big Ideas for America," Emanuel writes: "It's time for a real Patriot Act that brings out the patriot in all of us. We propose universal civilian service for every young American. Under this plan, all Americans between the ages of 18 and 25 will be asked to serve their country by going through three months of basic training, civil defense preparation and community service."

The book also notes, "Some Republicans will squeal about individual freedom, ruling out any likelihood that they would let people opt out of universal citizen service."

Emanuel is also an enthusiastic supporter of the United States Public Service Academy Act, a lobbying group founded in 2006 in order to promote the foundation of an American public service academy modeled on the military academies - a youth corps whose students would be trained in "civilian internship in the armed forces".

Furthermore, in a rediscovered 2006 audio clip of an interview with Ben Smith of the New York Daily News, Emanuel outlined the agenda for compulsory military-style training, essentially a domestic draft, aimed at preparing Americans for a chemical or biological terrorist attack.

When controversy arose over the program last November, the use of the word "required" to describe the program was removed from Obama's change.gov website and replaced with "community service" type terminology.

Though the civilian expeditionary workforce program is restricted to DoD employees, similar programs have already been established for public sector workers.

One such program has seen hundreds of police, firefighters, paramedics and utility workers recently trained and dispatched as "Terrorism Liaison Officers" in Colorado, Arizona and California to watch for "suspicious activity" which is later fed into a secret government database.

http://www.infowars.net/articles/january2009/300109workforce.htm