Air Force’s Tate’s Hell plan questioned

Published: Thursday, July 17, 2014 at 02:33 PM.

Specifically, Dunaway said, the Air Force’s document doesn’t present “reasonable alternatives” as required by the NEPA. Federal guidelines on NEPA oversight specify that the impact statement should examine alternatives “using common sense,” rather than simply document the impacts of the proponent’s desired action.

As previously reported by the Pensacola News Journal, the Air Force impact statement, released in May, essentially reflects the rules that the Air Force detailed last year, including limits on the number of vehicles, aircraft and troops that can participate in maneuvers. The plan would ban live ammunition but allow paintball for simulated combat.

The Air Force’s impact statement focuses on documenting the minimal impact that the planned war games would have on the forests’ environment and civilian recreation.

Ackerman, informed of Dunaway’s criticism, said the Air Force’s final impact statement will address “the consideration of reasonable alternatives.”

1 2 3

Reader comments posted to this article may be published in our print edition. All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be re-published without permission. Links are encouraged.

▲ Return to Top