By CAROL VAN STRUM
In yesterday’s post, “Navy Plan Would Turn Pacific Coast Into Firing Range,” we provided an overview on the current status of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) prepared by the Department of the Navy on its proposed use of coastline from Northern California to the Puget Sound as a firing range.
The most frequent question asked by people upon discovering the Navy’s plans is, “Why are they doing this?” Of course, the short answer under which all other answers flow is, “National Security.” Cloaked in an impressive array of laws and presidential directives, the Navy essentially claims authority to do whatever it pleases, whenever and wherever it pleases. The EIS process, however, is at least supposed to alert the public to what those actions are going to be.
The present EIS does not even offer the public that minimal information. The “actions” supposedly proposed by the Navy in various alternatives are specified only in the vaguest terms, and the locations for such actions are rarely specified at all. Because national security apparently requires the never-ending acquisition of new weapons systems, new aircraft, new ships and new equipment, the Navy intends to expand the area, frequency and intensity of weapons testing and training operations currently centered on Puget Sound, and intends to do so over the entire Pacific Northwest as necessary -– without, of course, specifying what constitutes “necessary.”
Obviously, national security does not require a competent environmental impact statement or more than token notice to the public. Susan Hogg, the attorney quoted in yesterday’s article, makes this abundantly clear in her letter to the Oregon Women Lawyers (OWLS) listserve, describing in detail the Navy meeting on Jan. 30. Following is the full text of her letter:
To all,
Last Friday, I attended a Navy open house and hearing on the Navy’s EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) and OEIS (Overseas Environmental Impact Statement). The EIS covers the state waters (three nautical miles), territorial waters out to 12 nm and the EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone) out to 200 nm from Washington to northern CA.
It’s being done because the Navy wants to significantly increase its training activities, which includes using unmanned drones, setting off explosives underwater, setting up minefields, targets for shooting practice and other practice warfare exercises. If you haven’t heard about this document or what the Navy intends to do, don’t be surprised, almost no one in Oregon has. Even worse, the Navy’s deadline for submission of comments on its draft EIS/OEIS, a huge document that purports to describe all the “significant” environmental impacts on the Oregon coast from greatly increased activities, is Feb. 11, 2009.
I found out about this event several days before Friday, only because someone on a coastal issues list serve I’m on said he’d seen mention of the public meetings in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Turns out that the Navy believes that “adequate” notice regarding an EIS/OEIS that allegedly covers the environmental impacts of greatly increased naval warfare exercises along the coast of OR, from the shoreline to 200 nm offshore, required a notice of open house and hearing in: (1) The Lincoln City News-Guard. That’s it.