JV - USMC FEIS Released.

[aphantomduck]

The JV FEIS was released about 9:30 (Pacific time) this evening.

A quick read of nearly 2000 plus pages shows me nothing really new and in light of those who have made comment to the effect that the mission of the USMC has changed (thanks Kurt), I don't see this being addressed in my quick scan of the document.

I'd say this document is daunting and the very first thing we should be demanding is an extension of 60 more days to review and comment to the FEIS.

It took the USMC 90 or so more days than was first released to the public to finish the document and release it to the public. In the interest of fairness, a 90 day review/comment period should be a reasonable request to be granted.

[lttlbddy]

Link:

http://www.marines.mil/unit/29palms/...s/default.aspx

[lttlbddy]

Originally Posted by aphantomduck

A quick read of nearly 2000 plus pages shows me nothing really new and in light of those who have made comment to the effect that the mission of the USMC has changed (thanks Kurt), I don't see this being addressed in my quick scan of the document.

To your point, my understanding is that they can only address points that were in their Proposal or comments to their proposal. Any changes outside of the proposal are irrelevant to the EIS.

[aphantomduck]

Originally Posted by lttlbddy

To your point, my understanding is that they can only address points that were in their Proposal or comments to their proposal. Any changes outside of the proposal are irrelevant to the EIS.

I'm not quite sure when this new direction for the USMC was released. If memory serves, Kurt brought this up about the same time as the DEIS was out. I'm not sure if he or others made this point in their comments.

Nonetheless, the Purpose and Need are required to provide the reviewer an adequate baseline of why the EIS is being prepared.

[Kurtuleas]

God I have a lot of reading to do.

And I am back to work this week.

[Kurtuleas]

I can't open the FEIS

[Kurtuleas]

Had to download it.

We need to request copies of ALL the references.

[Bebe]

Compared to Alternatives 1 and 2, Alternative 6 would retain public access to a large portion of the Johnson Valley OHV Area, and would have no significant impact on the local and regional transportation infrastructure.

This alternative has a higher potential risk to human health and safety, primarily associated with managing public recreation on the RPAA. However, these potential human health and safety considerations are outweighed by the increased public access.

Compared to other alternatives, Alternative 6 would have high adverse impacts on air quality, cultural resources, and biological resources due to continued OHV impacts in the RPAAs and new military training in the exclusive use areas. The Marine Corps also developed numerous SCMs and mitigation measures, including those resulting from consultation with cooperating agencies and regulating agencies, to reduce adverse environmental impacts.

From an operational perspective, the best alternative is Alternative 1. Alternative 5 is the environmentally preferable alternative. However, Alternative 5 is a very poor alternative from an operational perspective. Alternative 6, while not the best alternative from either an operational or
environmental impact perspective, is the optimal alternative given both the operational and environmental impact factors considered together.

Consequently, Alternative 6 is the Marine Corps’ Preferred Alternative. This determination is based on the training value afforded by Alternative 6 and the amount of land area that would still be available and accessible to the public for recreational purposes, subject to the restrictions identified in Section 2.5.

:/

[tjmark]

So after 30 days if they decide on their choice how soon would it go in effect?
Or does that choice then go to congress
Then how long?
1 year?
5 years?
Next month?

Thanks

[mbryson]

Originally Posted by Bebe

Quote:
Compared to Alternatives 1 and 2, Alternative 6 would retain public access to a large portion of the Johnson Valley OHV Area, and would have no significant impact on the local and regional transportation infrastructure.

This alternative has a higher potential risk to human health and safety, primarily associated with managing public recreation on the RPAA. However, these potential human health and safety considerations are outweighed by the increased public access.

Compared to other alternatives, Alternative 6 would have high adverse impacts on air quality, cultural resources, and biological resources due to continued OHV impacts in the RPAAs and new military training in the exclusive use areas. The Marine Corps also developed numerous SCMs and mitigation measures, including those resulting from consultation with cooperating agencies and regulating agencies, to reduce adverse environmental impacts.

From an operational perspective, the best alternative is Alternative 1. Alternative 5 is the environmentally preferable alternative. However, Alternative 5 is a very poor alternative from an operational perspective. Alternative 6, while not the best alternative from either an operational or
environmental impact perspective, is the optimal alternative given both the operational and environmental impact factors considered together.

Consequently, Alternative 6 is the Marine Corps’ Preferred Alternative. This determination is based on the training value afforded by Alternative 6 and the amount of land area that would still be available and accessible to the public for recreational purposes, subject to the restrictions identified in Section 2.5.
:/

This sounds about as good as it can get? I just got my packet today. Won't have time to review until Sunday night or so?

[WLD_OTZ]

I got the post card in the mail, and I tried reading it. I r dum.

It is just way over my head. Not with big words, but talking in circles. Preferred alternative, I love that. It causes the most harm to the public, cuz they're gonna get blown up, and it is the worst for the environment, but hey, since you guys whined, that's what we'll do:eyorevoiceoff:

That will get it shut down and they they will say "we tried"...

I love it. No regard for Americans at all.

I used to respect the Marines. I cannot say that this evening.

Continued reading I came agross the vehicles and miles traveled per excersize and per annum. This one stuck out as odd, can someone splain it to me?

Type Qnty Miles driven per exersize Miles driven per year.
Amphibious Assault Vehicle 187 43,775 87,550

This is still Johnson Valley, right?

[lamar95x4]

Originally Posted by WLD_OTZ

Continued reading I came across the vehicles and miles traveled per exercise and per annum. This one stuck out as odd, can someone explain it to me?

Type Qnty Miles driven per exersize Miles driven per year.
Amphibious Assault Vehicle 187 43,775 87,550

This is still Johnson Valley, right?

This says there will be up to 187 AAV's (Marine Corps armored/tracked vehicle that kinda floats), that will travel up to a combined total of 43,775 miles per exercise (30 days) for 2 exercises per year totaling 87,550 miles.

Mike

[WLD_OTZ]

Originally Posted by lamar95x4

This says there will be up to 187 AAV's (Marine Corps armored/tracked vehicle that kinda floats), that will travel up to a combined total of 43,775 miles per exercise (30 days) for 2 exercises per year totaling 87,550 miles.

Mike

yah, I got that part, I guess I am asking 'why'? Johnson Valley has no use for an amphibious vehicle. It is vehicle misuse, bordering on abuse.

[2slo4u]

believe their talking about this.

[lamar95x4]

Originally Posted by WLD_OTZ

yah, I got that part, I guess I am asking 'why'? Johnson Valley has no use for an amphibious vehicle. It is vehicle misuse, bordering on abuse.

Oh, I see. It's primary function is as a troop carrier similar to the bradley fighting vehicle. Infantry units do not have trucks and this vehicle is how they traditionally get around. Being amphibious is only part of it's function.

Originally Posted by 2slo4u

believe their talking about this.

That's it.

[flatblack51]

These are floating death traps! I launched these from previous duty station and primary use is to just this attack from the sea. Troop transportation from a amphibious landing/docking ship. They do t need to be in JV atleast our area.there s plenty of training area around camp P for these things to train. These AAV's won't last a week in JV! So kiss your tax dollars good bye on over priced parts for something that should have never been driven in JV!

[shortbus4x4]

Originally Posted by flatblack51

These are floating death traps! I launched these from previous duty station and primary use is to just this attack from the sea. Troop transportation from a amphibious landing/docking ship. They do t need to be in JV atleast our area.there s plenty of training area around camp P for these things to train. These AAV's won't last a week in JV! So kiss your tax dollars good bye on over priced parts for something that should have never been driven in JV!

Yep. Camp Del Mar and the beaches north are a perfectly fine training area for the 'tracs. They were designed for beach/amphibious assaults, not armored desert warfare.

[Munchies]

They want to do larger exercises. They want a mock beach landing HERE while ospreys land troops over THERE, and f/a-18's blow shit up over YONDER. SOme tanks cruising by that way, and a few thousand guys ruck marching up a hill.
They explain why in the FAQ section. Its bullshit but whatever.

[bushauler]

my buddy flies drones out there now as a civilian for the marines and is involved in all the big training exercises they do now. he says they dont even come close to using all the land they have now. such a shame

[kota4bye]

Originally Posted by flatblack51

These are floating death traps! I launched these from previous duty station and primary use is to just this attack from the sea. Troop transportation from a amphibious landing/docking ship. They do t need to be in JV atleast our area.there s plenty of training area around camp P for these things to train. These AAV's won't last a week in JV! So kiss your tax dollars good bye on over priced parts for something that should have never been driven in JV!

You realize AAVs have been out there for years, right?

[BroadSword]

Originally Posted by flatblack51

These are floating death traps! I launched these from previous duty station and primary use is to just this attack from the sea. Troop transportation from a amphibious landing/docking ship. They do t need to be in JV atleast our area.there s plenty of training area around camp P for these things to train. These AAV's won't last a week in JV! So kiss your tax dollars good bye on over priced parts for something that should have never been driven in JV!

They made it all the way to Baghdad from Kuwait. Not that I want to do that again.

The AAV argument is a waste of time. Stick to the loss of an irreplaceable recreational area, and severe economic impact arguments.

[coyote]

I bet they let you use it during the day July to August only.....was waiting for the our recommendation is....did read, we don't play well with others statement! I figured if your in the same battle, it might be real to train with them...but heck what do I know...go east...

[tjmark]

Originally Posted by tjmark

So after 30 days if they decide on their choice how soon would it go in effect?
Or does that choice then go to congress
Then how long?
1 year?
5 years?
Next month?

Thanks

Any idea?

[rockwrangler]

Originally Posted by tjmark

Any idea?

From what I'm reading and seeing it looks like 10/2014 or fiscal year 2015 would be their first scheduled training if I'm seeing it right.

[Blue Devil Toyota]

We make all kinds of parts for those AAV's I hope they beat the piss out of them, so we can get some more orders. Sorry kind of off topic.