[A] coalition of Chittenden County activists opposed to the basing of F-35 fighter jets at Burlington International Airport are calling on the Air Force to undertake a new environmental review of the planes’ potential impact on the area and its residents.
The opponents, organized loosely under the banner “Save Our Skies,” contend that new information calls into question the accuracy of the original 2013 federal assessment.
They also have filed a series of public records requests seeking more information on the impending jet basing — set to begin in fall 2019 — including whether nuclear weapons would be housed in Vermont. They say they are considering a lawsuit if their demands for a new review aren’t met.
In a letter dated Aug. 3, Save Our Skies lawyer James Dumont of Bristol says the initial Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Burlington was invalidated when Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson told multiple Vermont officials this spring that the “Vermont Air National Guard would likely lose their flying mission upon the retirement of the F-16s.”
The Air Force’s EIS compared noise and other environmental factors between the current fleet of F-16s based in Vermont and the F-35, not — as would be the case following the recent Air Force statement — between the F-16s and no planes at all. The 2013 review also noted that “if there is no F-35A operational beddown at Burlington, the current mission would continue.”
“If Vermonters knew the alternative to the F-35 was going to be no fighter planes and zero jet noise, it very well might have changed the way people viewed this basing,” said retired Col. Rosanne Greco, the de facto leader of the F-35 opposition movement. “Spending on home insulation for jet noise would not have happened and home demolition wouldn’t have occurred.”
The National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, demands a supplemental review if “there are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts.”
Dumont and Greco have already fought against the accuracy of the EIS, albeit on somewhat different grounds. In 2014, they filed a suit in U.S. District Court alleging the Air Force failed to properly gauge the potential impact of the F-35 basing on surrounding communities. They lost that case on Aug. 10, 2016, when Judge Geoffrey Crawford ruled that the EIS “meets the requirements that the agency action not be arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”
While Crawford ruled against the F-35 opponents in the initial case, his interpretation of the EIS was that a flying mission would continue should the F-35s not be based in Vermont.
“There is no indication in the record that [the Air Force] has decided to close the VTANG base if the F-35 does not arrive,” Crawford said. “The record shows the opposite. Fighter planes of one description or another will continue to be based at [the guard base].”
Dumont’s letter to the Air Force also calls into question the Air Force’s decision to base the planes in Burlington despite not having an adequate training range. An early comparative table for Burlington and the two other bases in contention — Jacksonville, Florida, and McEntyre in Richland, South Carolina — shows that Burlington was the only one without proper training capabilities.
While the other two bases did not require investments to upgrade training capabilities, the Air Force estimated the upgrade costs at $20 million, plus $1 million in annual upkeep.
Dumont argues that these numbers don’t square with the Air Force’s so-called record of decision, which expressed a preference for Burlington because of cost savings, among other factors. The comparative table — Base comparison — also projected Burlington as having the highest facility upgrade costs, the most public opposition, and the greatest environmental costs.
It’s unclear what the training range upgrades for the F-35 would look like. Opponents of the F-35 believe it will come in form of the Advanced Radar Threat System Variant 2, a system currently under development by Lockheed Martin that will help air crews train to evade modern radar-guided surface-to-air missiles.
In an email, Vermont Air Guard Lt. Mikel Arcovitch said: “We are making all necessary upgrades to house the F-35 for when it arrives in 2019,” and added that the Variant 2 system “is currently not a construction project identified or a planned real property facility program in Burlington.”
When VTDigger toured the Vermont Air National Guard base in March, officials said about $83 million had been spent on upgrades, most of which were unrelated to the F-35 basing.
Despite the fact the planes are scheduled to begin arriving in Vermont next year and that the full roster of top state officials have recently reaffirmed their support for the F-35 basing, opponents maintain they are reinvigorated in their fight.
They say they have taken newfound energy and inspiration from the recent passage of city council resolutions in three adjoining communities — Burlington, South Burlington and Winooski — calling on the Air Force to cancel its plans and provide the base with an alternative mission.
“One could be cynical and say the law doesn’t make any difference, the facts don’t make any difference, all that counts is what Patrick Leahy wants,” said Dumont, referring to the outsize role Vermont’s senior senator played in the basing. “I’m not ready to be that cynical. If we live under a government of laws, and not men, maybe this request makes a difference.”
