<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:garamond, new york, times, serif;font-size:14pt"><div><em>Dear Occupiers,</em></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 18.6667px; font-family: garamond,new york,times,serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: italic;"><br><em></em></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 18.6667px; font-family: garamond,new york,times,serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: italic;"><em>Does anyone have clarity as to which of these unacceptable alternatives is least dire, & should be favored when commenting to www.NWTTEIS.com? Deadlineto submit comments is Tuesday 4/15. I am composing my own screed & would welcome any suggestions re jargon, etc.<br></em></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 18.6667px; font-family: garamond,new york,times,serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: italic;"><br><em></em></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);
font-size: 18.6667px; font-family: garamond,new york,times,serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: italic;"><em>Thanks,</em></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 18.6667px; font-family: garamond,new york,times,serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: italic;"><br><em></em></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 18.6667px; font-family: garamond,new york,times,serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: italic;"><em>Liz<br></em></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 18.6667px; font-family: garamond,new york,times,serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: italic;"><em><br></em></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 18.6667px; font-family: garamond,new york,times,serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: italic;"><em><br></em></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 18.6667px; font-family: garamond,new york,times,serif; background-color: transparent; font-style:
italic;"><em><br></em></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 18.6667px; font-family: garamond,new york,times,serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: italic;"><em><br></em></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 18.6667px; font-family: garamond,new york,times,serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: italic;"><em><br></em></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 18.6667px; font-family: garamond,new york,times,serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: italic;"><em><br></em></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 18.6667px; font-family: garamond,new york,times,serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: italic;"><em><br></em></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 18.6667px; font-family: garamond,new york,times,serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: italic;"><em><br></em></div><div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 18.6667px; font-family: garamond,new
york,times,serif; background-color: transparent; font-style: italic;"><em>No Action Alternative<br>
</em>
</div><div>Under the No Action Alternative, the Navy would continue current
training and testing activities as defined by existing environmental
planning documents, including the Northwest Training Range Complex
EIS/OEIS and the Naval Sea Systems Command Naval Undersea Warfare Center
Keyport Range Complex Extension EIS/OEIS. The baseline testing
activities also include other testing events that historically occur in
the NWTT Study Area (see Figure 1) and have been subject to previous
analysis pursuant to NEPA and Executive Order 12114. Analysis of the No
Action Alternative provides a baseline, enabling decision makers to
compare the magnitude of the environmental effects of no action (current
activities) to the effects of the action alternatives. Baseline
activities do not include training with sonar in Puget Sound.</div>
<div><em><br>
Alternative 1</em></div>
<div>Alternative 1 includes adjustments to types and levels from baseline
activities conducted in the NWTT Study Area to support current and
planned Navy at-sea training and testing requirements. Under Alternative
1, sink exercises would be eliminated.<br>
Alternative 1 includes:</div>
<ul style="list-style-type: disc; margin-top: 0in;"><li>Testing activities at Navy pierside locations in Puget Sound,
the Carr Inlet Operations Area and the Southeast Alaska Acoustic
Measurement Facility </li><li>Mission requirements associated with force structure changes,
including those resulting from the development, testing and introduction
of new vessels, aircraft and weapons systems into the fleet </li></ul>
<br>
<div>Alternative 1 includes some activities that were not analyzed in previous documents. New activities being considered include:</div>
<ul style="list-style-type: disc; margin-top: 0in;"><li>Use of new and existing unmanned vehicles and their acoustic
sensors, in support of homeland security and anti-terrorism/force
protection. This type of training is critical in protecting the nation’s
military and civilian harbors, ports and shipping lanes. </li><li>Use of 0.50-caliber blanks in Puget Sound in support of force
protection training of the Navy’s Maritime Expeditionary Security Force.
</li><li>Addition of a biennial maritime homeland defense mine
countermeasure training exercise in Puget Sound and analyzing the amount
of time acoustic sensors are used during that event.</li></ul>
<br>
<div><em>Alternative 2</em></div>
<div>Alternative 2 includes all activities in Alternative 1 plus
adjustments to the type and level of training and testing activities.
Under Alternative 2, sink exercises would be eliminated.</div><div></div></div></body></html>