Citizens For Oversight of Navy Ocean Disposal Operations CONDO
Citizens Oversight of Navy Ocean Disposal Operations (CONDO) came together in 2010 as an information-sharing association of the Agriculture Defense Coalition, Citizens Opposed to Weaponizing the Oregon Coast, and coastal residents of California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, and Idaho. Their common concern was the toxic legacy accumulating from the U.S. Navy's ever-expanding weapons testing and training in coastal waters from California to Alaska.
CONDO Contact Information: E-Mail firstname.lastname@example.org
CONDO collects and distributes information on Navy-generated pollution of marine ecosystems, the Navy's continuing expansion plans, and the escalating erosion of Navy integrity and competence. A current oversight project examines the Navy's explosive ordnance disposal and hazardous material disposal practices at sea in Pacific waters.
Deja Vu Again and Again: Navy Weapons Tests Metastasize
by Carol Van Strum
Staff writer for Planet Waves, and contributor to CONDO
Four years ago, the U.S. Navy issued its final NWTRC Environmental Impact Statement for weapons testing and training along and offshore of the entire Pacific Northwest from the Canadian border, to all of Washington and Oregon, and northern California, including parts of Idaho. The final EIS/OEIS included three volumes, containing thousands of pages. Volume III was for public comments, well-prepared, substantive comments, a few answered by dismissive and insulting Navy responses, and most answered simply, "Duly noted."
http://www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org/sites/default/files/file/us_n..., other volumes are listed below.
How duly the Navy noted all those comments is sorely evident in the Navy's NWTt Draft 2014 Environmental Impact Statement containing more of the same bombing, gunnery, explosives, and sonar testing and training in the same area, now extended all the way to Alaska (SEE LINK BELOW). For example, many 2010 commenters pointed out the Navy's egregious refusal to avoid disturbing marine reserves along the Oregon and California coasts. The 2014 EIS repeats the same insult to all the care and planning devoted to marine reserves, bluntly asserting its right to bomb, shoot, explode, and zap with sonar and electromagnetic impulses every living thing in these sanctuaries.
So much for the Navy's commitment to environmental stewardship!
Similarly, in 2010, despite many commenters pointing out the absurdity and illegality of defining a “No Action” alternative as a continuance of sixty years of previous actions, the Navy insisted on doing so, thereby rendering the entire EIS a travesty. For example, in comparing its three alternative actions, all of the Navy's “No Action” data were for a single year rather than for the 60+ years that comprise the Navy's definition of “No Action.” The Navy thus reduced and concealed the true baseline impacts of its “No Action” alternative, skewing all of its comparisons 60-fold. By the Navy's own definition, any comparison of Alternatives 1 and 2 to the “No Action” alternative should have added each annual amount to a 60-year-total for the “No Action” alternative as defined by the Navy.
Instead of remedying that falsity, the Navy's 2014 NWTT EIS incorporates it as previously approved -- without saying, of course, who approved it! For some specific issues raised by 2010 commenters, such as the question of the cumulative effects of some 60 years of depleted uranium use in the “No Action” alternative, the Navy has simply omitted all mention of depleted uranium in its 2014 EIS (instead of repeating its previous 2010 reliance on thoroughly discredited, unpublished, non-peer-reviewed research [e.g., pp. G-288-G-289]).
In 2010, blatant notice and comment failures were repeatedly answered by simply declaring with no substantiation that the Navy complied with NEPA, at the same time often citing “public notification budget” considerations for notification failures (see e.g., pp. G-94 (twice), G-95, G-96, G-127, G-176, G-184, G-200, G-201, G-228, G-229, G-236, G-247, G-305). The Navy compounded its notice failures by repeating the same fiasco with the final EIS, hiding notice in an EPA Federal Register notice, sending only a single copy for the entire state of Oregon to a library hundreds of miles from many affected coastal communities, and having its web site crash or be inaccessible during the comment period.
Repeating ad infinitum that the Navy complied with NEPA does not make it so, and with typical obfuscation, the Navy has repeated the same failures in 2014, sending out its draft EIS on compact disks with no search function, failing to put even a rudimentary index in its hard copy, sending hard copies only to a few libraries remote from most of the affected coastlines, refusing to send hard copies to folks without computers on grounds it is too expensive.
The Navy ignored or dismissed many 2010 commenters' substantive issues, such as the DOI recommendation that all alternatives include measures for retrieval of debris and equipment,and also include analysis of the effects of toxics released into the water by uncollected debris, to which the Navy responded by saying it would be “impractical, if not impossible to collect the thousands of expended items...,” and that requiring collection of them would therefore be unreasonable. (G-38) To the surprise of no one, the 2014 NWTt draft EIS does not address this issue.
In response to numerous comments about hazardous materials, the Navy added some scattered information to the final 2010 EIS about toxicity and Navy waste disposal practices, including its practice of throwing heavy metals, solvents, cyanide, and other toxics overboard (see, e.g., p.3.3-17) . Predictably, the Navy concluded upon no basis whatsoever that there would be no significant impact from such practices, and nowhere mentioned the cumulative impact of 60 years of such wanton dumping encompassed by the “No Action” alternative. Absent any official oversight of Navy disposal practices, citizen oversight, via CONDO, is imperative.
Having approved of its own legerdemain back in 2010, the Navy doesn't even include a hazardous materials disposal section in its 2014 NWTT draft EIS, and has so far refused to provide such information, or information about explosive weapons disposal, under the Freedom of Information Act.
The above are just a few of the shortcomings (a kinder, gentler way to say total lies and failures) repeated and multiplied in the Navy's 2014 NWTT draft EIS, which is poorly organized, badly written, and replete with self-referrals and disinformation. It couldn't be worse if they tried.
Thanks to the efforts of county supervisors and commissioners in Oregon and California, as well as some outraged citizens, the Navy has extended the comment period for its current travesty to April 15, 2014. Take some time to look at it and comment, and above all, to raise the issues with legislators and the media. End
U.S. Navy Escalates Warfare Testing in the Pacific, Atlantic & Gulf of Mexico Escalates in 2013 & 2014.
Public Comment Due by April 15, 2014
"Shock & Awe" Bomb Blasts, Sonar use, Missile Exercises, Live-Fire Weapons Testing, Lasers, Electromagnetic
Weapons, and Experimental Weapons Testing all negatively impact marine life and our oceans.
Public Comment Due by April 15, 2014, on U.S. Navy NWTT Website for Northern California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho & Alaska. Read the Northwest Training & Testing EIS/OEIS Draft EIS/OEIS on the U.S. Navy Website & Make Your Public Comments or Ask Questions:
U.S. Navy Website: http://nwtteis.com/
Call Your Elected Officials Today in Washington D.C. Toll Free: (1866) 220-0044
1) Request a 30 to 60 Day Extension of Time for Public Comment (U.S. Navy NWTT Draft EIS/OEIS)
2) Contact U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer Requesting Congressional Hearings to Protect Our National Marine Sanctuaries, Biologically Sensitive Areas, Marine Reserves, Coral Reefs & Other Coastal Regions from "Shock & Awe" Navy Warfare Testing.
3) The U.S. Navy applied for two permits to “take” marine mammals in the NWTT Range Complex which includes Northern California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho & California. The U.S. Navy applications to NOAA was issued on December 18, 2014, one month before the Navy NWTT Draft EIS/OEIS was available for public comment on January 18, 2014.
A. The public comment period issued by NOAA on these two applications (300 pages in length), closed on February 28, 2014, and did not give time for public comment due to the length of the Navy applications to NOAA and the Navy Draft EIS (Approximately 2,000 Pages in Length).
B. We formally request that the NOAA deadline for Public Comment be reopened and that the U.S. Navy Draft EIS/OEIS public comment period be extended for 30 to 60 days. Both the Navy Applications to NOAA and the NWTT Draft EIS are based on the information in both documents. Thus, the public comment periods should be open at the same time to give the public time to comment under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
C. We are aware that the U.S. Navy granted a very brief extension of the public comment period on the NWTT Draft EIS/OEIS. However, without the public comment being opened on the Navy applications to NOAA, public comment is restricted because the two applications are based on the NWTT Draft EIS/OEIS. Both public comment periods should be open at the same time due to the extensive information in each these documents.
U.S. Navy Requests for Letters of Authorization to “Take” marine mammals listed by application date and range location.
U.S. Navy Application – December 18, 2013:
Public Comment Was Closed on February 28, 2014. Please join us in working to reopen this public comment period.
U.S. Federal Register Notice for & E-Mail (also mail address), for Public Comment:
217 7 2014 U.S. Navy NWTT Warfare Training Testing Range Map February 28 2014 Northern CA Oregon Washington Idaho Alaska.pdf
U.S. NAVY TWO APPLICATIONS TO NOAA TO "TAKE" OR HARM MARINE MAMMALS IN NWTT RANGE:
U.S. NAVY MPA OF THE NWTT RANGE COMPLEX:
THE U.S. NAVY HAS MORE THAN TWELVE COASTAL WARFARE TESTING OPERATING RANGES:
U.S. NAVY MITIGATION MEASURES TO PROTECT MARINE MAMMALS EFFECTIVE ONLY 9% OF THE TIME:
IMPORTANT LETTERS WRITTEN BY U.S. ELECTED OFFICIALS:
U.S. NAVY TWO APPLICATIONS TO "TAKE" OR HARM MARINE MAMMALS & OTHER ACTIONS:
ADDITIONAL WEST COAST INFORMATION:
U.S. NAVY DRAFT NWTT EIS/OEIS (NORTHERN CA, OREGON, WASHINGTON, IDAHO & ALASKA):
U.S. NAVY WEST COAST INFORMATION:
U.S. NAVY FINAL NWTRC INFORMATION (Current Activities in new NWTT Range):
U.S. NAVY FINAL NWTRC OES/OEIS & ROD (Record of Decision) Detailing Current Warfare Activities in the NWTT Range at this time:
U.S. NAVY WEAPONS SYSTEMS & EXPERIMENTAL WEAPONS BEING TESTED IN ALMOST ALL WARFARE TESTING RANGES:
U.S. NAVY FINAL GULF OF MEXICO EIS/OIES:
U.S. NAVY COASTAL COMMISSION ACTION WITH REGARD TO U.S. NAVY SONAR COASTAL ACTIVITIES:
U.S. GAO (GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTING OFFICE) REPORTS:
U.S. NAVY HAWAII / SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WARFARE TESTING RANGE:
U.S. NAVY GULF OF ALASKA WARFARE TESTING ROD (RECORD OF DECISION):
U.S. NAVY MARIANA ISLANDS WARFARE TESTING RANGE (PACIFIC):
NEWS ARTICLES & MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION:
NOAA (National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration) & NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) Information & Other Related Information:
U.S. Navy Mitigation Measures to Protect Marine Mammals Effective Only 9% of the Time:
TOXIC CHEMICALS USED IN OCEAN & LAND AREAS (Note Radiation Issues):
LASERS - U.S. Navy Warfare Testing (Note Acoustic Impacts of Lasers):
SONAR & SEISMIC AIRGUNS:
U.S. NAVY RADIATION ISSUES:
U.S. NAVY DRONES & OTHER AIRCRAFT:
REEFS & COASTAL REGIONS:
OCEAN MARINE LIFE
U.S. GOVERNMENT INFORMATION:
*** The U.S. Navy Map below outlines the areas in which the U.S. Navy is now conducting warfare testing in the Pacific, Atlantic & Gulf of Mexico. There are more than twelve U.S. Navy coastal operating ranges in these areas. (The Navy Mariana Islands Range Complex in the Pacific is included in this list.) And each range complex, whether large or small, has permits from NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service to "take" or harm marine mammals.
Click here for a full size poster! (9.42MB)