[As submitted to the Air Force and Bureau of Land Management on Dec. 30, 1998.]
December 1998
As a Nevada resident, I am submitting the following comments on the Draft Legislative Environmental Impact Statement for the Renewal of the Nellis Air Force Range, which was released in September 1998.
Since my comments are quite lengthy, I have divided this document into three parts: In Part I, I summarize my comments and the philosophy behind them. In Part II, I list specific inadequacies I see in the Draft LEIS, moving sequentially through the pages of the report. Finally, in Part III, I offer some general conclusions and recommendations.
Specifically, DOE would obtain control of the Pahute Mesa area, which it is currently using, while the Air Force would obtain control of the lands currently withdrawn by DOE under Public Land Order 1662 (PLO 1662). These latter lands, popularly known as "Area 51", are the site of a classified Air Force facility at Groom Dry Lake.
My primary criticism throughout this report is that virtually no environmental information has been provided for the PLO-1662 lands, and that this omission threatens the integrity of the rest of the report as well.
I understand from reading local newspapers that under a recent federal court ruling (in Frost vs. Perry) and an annual exemption from the President, that the Air Force may be entitled to withhold from the public certain environmental data about the Groom Lake base which is deemed a risk to national security. If this is true, I believe that the report should state this explicitly, specifying the general parameters of what is being withheld and the legal authority for doing so.
As it stands, the Draft LEIS omits most data regarding the PLO-1662 land, with no mention of what is being omitted or why. This, I believe, jeopardizes the integrity of the entire report, since the reader cannot distinguished between "Negative Data," "No Research," "Classified Data" or "Overlooked Data."
To take a simple example, Figure 3.5-5 on Page 3.5-8 of the Draft LEIS provides a map of earthquake faults throughout the Nellis Range, the Nevada Test Site and surrounding areas. There are no earthquake faults shown within the block of land defined by PLO-1662. This strikes me as curious, because faults are often associated with mountain ranges, and a portion of one small range, the Papoose Range, is located within the PLO-1662 lands; yet, the map shows no faults associated with these mountains. Knowing that other environmental data on PLO-1662 has been withheld, the reader is left in the dark about what the absence of data means. He must choose between these possible alternatives:
The fact that the authors of the report chose to include the fault map implies that this kind of data could conceivably have an impact on the environmental process. The fact the most faults in this area seem benign does not remove the need for complete data. If one is going to create such a map, it should be reliable, and the absence of data on PLO-1662 lands elsewhere in the report leaves the reader questioning the map. If we look at another portion of the map where there are no faults shown, we must ask the same question: Is this no fault, a classified fault, or a "fault" in the report itself?
Likewise, on page 1-16 of the Draft LEIS, a map of area roads omits all roads within PLO 1662 land. In addition, it omits several prominent roads in the NAFR that lead to PLO 1662 land. It even omits the extensions of these roads into public land and the Nevada Test Site. If facilities within PLO 1662 land are kept secret through a special exemption, the reader is left to wonder where this exemption ends. Does it end at the boundaries defined by PLO 1662, or does it include wide portions of the current NAFR, public land and the NTS as well? As a citizen who might have some valid environmental issues to raise, I cannot comment intelligently on any omission anywhere in the report so long as undefined parts of the data are withheld without notation.
In the specific case of the fault map, the ambiguity would easily be resolved by a simple statement in the text like this: "Complete surveys have identified no faults within the lands described by PLO-1662."
Similarly, most of the other objections I raise in Part II would be resolved by a statement at the beginning of the report saying what kind of data is being withheld and under what authority. Later in the report as specific environmental issues are reviewed, one-sentence statements can refer back to the original statement. (E.g. "This data is being withheld under Presidential exemption, see Section XX.")
Further suggestions are provided in Part III.
Many of the comments I make on the Executive Summary also apply to the corresponding sections of the main report.
Lands within PLO 1662, adjacent to the South Range, are withdrawn for the Nevada Test Site by DOE and used through a Memorandum of Agreement with the Air Force.Consistant with the descriptions of the North and South Ranges in the same section, a short description of activities and facilities on the PLO 1662 lands should be given, even if to simply state that they are classified.
Also, more information should be given on the Memorandum of Agreement, which is not further specified anywhere else in the document. At least the date or document number should be given to allow this Memorandum to be located or referred to. Unlike Public Land Orders and Public Laws, internal memoranda like this are not easily located without more specific information. If the Memorandum of Agreement is classified, this should be stated, as it frees researchers such as myself from filing repeated FOIA requests for it. (My own FOIA requests to Nellis and DOE have failed to produce the document or any useful information about it.)
The North Ranges includes Pahute Mesa and other areas, which are used by DOE through mutual agreement.
Consistant with the descriptions of the North and South Ranges in the same section, a short description of DOE activities and facilities on Pahute Mesa lands should be given. Even if DOE controls those facilities, they will remain part of the Nellis Range under Alternatives 1A and 2A, so it would be useful to know what is there.
The process for receiving input includes the following:A note should be added here that although these meeting were indeed held, the public was given no information at the time that PLO 1662 lands would be included in the renewal. The Notice of Intent which announced the scoping meetings (Federal Register: May 30, 1996) mentioned only PL 99-606 and the alternatives given did not include any adminstrative reallignment. Since the public was not told of possible administrative reallignment of PLO 1662 (or of any other land), the public could not offer any meaningful input, and the scoping process was effectively bypassed for this part of the current Air Force proposal.
- Six public scoping meetings in communities surrounding NAFR.
I personally was lead to believe that PLO 1662 was not involved in the Range Renewal. Several days before the scoping meeting in Las Vegas on June 20, 1996, I contacted the Nellis Public Affairs officer, Capt. Andrew Bourland, and requested a township/range description of the lands affected by the Range Renewal. I told him that I could not offer meaningful comment unless I knew what lands I was commenting on. Upon my arrival at the scoping meeting I was given a township/range list similar to that found in Appendix A.10 of the draft LEIS. I determined that PLO 1662 lands were not included on that list, and on this basis I declined comment. Indeed, if I had commented, these comments would not have been relevant because they were not part of the published purpose of the meeting as defined in the Notice of Intent. Because PLO 1662 lands were never mentioned, I and any other citizen interested specifically in these lands were effectively excluded from the scoping process -- even if we attended the meetings -- and our potential concerns could not have been addressed in the Draft LEIS.
Again, a notation should be added here that these issues and concerns do not include PLO 1662 lands, which the public was not given the opportunity to comment on.
Overlapping withdrawals of NAFR and DNWR lands would remain.For clarity, it should also be stated here that the PLO 1662 lands would remain under DOE control.
Although information is provided about contaminated sites on the existing NAFR land, none is provided for PLO 1662 lands. The same information that is provided for NAFR should also be provided for PLO 1662 lands.
If this information is classified, the LEIS should say so, and there would seem no national security risk in at least stating the number of contaminated sites within PLO 1662.
It should also be stated who will be responsible for environmental cleanup in PLO 1662 lands under Alternatives 1B and 2B, and under what program the sites are currently being identified and cleaned up (for example, FFACO or IRP, as is listed for DOE and NAFR lands).
Information on prior mining should be given for PLO 1662 lands, as it has for NAFR lands. (If it is the same as NAFR lands, this should be stated.) I am particularly interested in knowing in what year commercial mining stopped in this area.
In addition, there should be a statement as to whether any mining or tunnelling has taken place in NAFR or PLO 1662 lands since they were withdrawn from public use.
Information on water resources should be given for PLO 1662 lands, as it has for NAFR lands.
Information on biological resources should be given for PLO 1662 lands, as it has for NAFR lands, even to simply state that they are the same as NAFR.
Information on cultural resources should be given for PLO 1662 lands, as it has for NAFR lands. The number of identified cultural resources on these lands should be stated.
Since access to PLO 1662 lands has been highly restricted, I would like to know to what extent surveys have been conducted to identify cultural resources. Is the cultural survey of this area considered complete, or has national security hindered it?
A brief history of the PLO 1662 lands should be provided, as it is for the NAFR.
A list of land transactions for PLO 1662 should be provided as an additional table. PLO 1662 itself should be listed here, along with the Memorandum of Agreement between DOE and Air Force, and any other transactions affecting this land.
This map should include the airfield adjacent to Groom Dry Lake, as seen in unclassified satellite images. Although these facilities are not currently part of the NAFR, they would be under Alternatives 1B and 2B.
A number of prominent, well-maintained roads are missing from this map, both inside the PLO 1662 land and leading to it through the current NAFR. These missing roads can be plainly seen in published U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps and unclassified satellite images.
Within the current NAFR, at least three actively-maintained, two-lane, all-weather access roads are missing from the map. As a former resident of Rachel, Nevada, I am aware of two major access roads leading into the range from Highway 375 but not appearing on the map beyond the NAFR border. As a past visitor to the Nevada Test Site, I am aware of a third major road leading into the range from the northeastern corner of the NTS, also not shown on the map. Here is an approximate description of these roads based on the map on page 1-16...
Inside the PLO 1662 land, there are dozens of major roads not given on the map. Consult the topographic map above or USGS Landsat imagery of the area.
Within the bounds of available funding, each of these programs has been, or is being, completed on the NAFR.
It should also be stated whether the environmental programs have been completed in the PLO 1662 lands as well.
The same information provided for NAFR in that paragraph (beginning with the quote above) should also be provided for PLO 1662. Does the Air Force maintain environmental compliance within the PLO 1662 lands?
Other comments I made on the Excutive Summary (pages ES-4 and ES-5) also apply to the corresponding sections of this "Description of Alternatives" chapter (that issues could not have have been contributed from the public regarding PLO 1662).
Aircraft that land present a different environmental profile than those that merely transit an airspace at altitude, so both kinds of flights should be mentioned in this section.
Information on hazardous materials and solid waste sites within PLO 1662 land is completely absent from this chapter. The same information that is provided for NAFR should also be provided here for PLO 1662 land.
The details of certain sites within PLO 1662 land may be classified, but that should not prevent the report from listing the number of identified sites and whether they are in compliance with environmental regulations.
The report should also state who is currently responsible for hazardous materials cleanup in PLO 1662 land -- Air Force or DOE -- and who will be responsible if Alternative 1B or 2B takes effect.
The maps in this chapter show a confusing combination of inclusions and omissions for PLO 1662 land. The Physiographic Map (Page 3.5-3) appears to be complete for PLO 1662 land, but the General Geology map (Page 3.5-5) omits data for this land (as do the maps on page 3.5-31 and 3.5-40). The Mineral Potential on pages 3.5-16 through 3.5-18 both include and omit data for PLO 1662 land, showing some mineral potentials but obviously excluding others.
Other maps within this chapter are ambiguous. (See page 3.5-7, 3.5-8, 3.5-20, 3.5-21, 3.5-27, 3.5-29, 3.5-30, 3.5-32, 3.5-33, 3.5-34, 3.5-35.) As discussed in Part I, it is not clear whether the blank space for PLO 1662 land reflects "Negative Data," "No Research," "Classified Data," or "Overlooked Data."
The same information provided for NAFR in this chapter should also be provided for PLO 1662 land.
Have other air pollutants been identified emanating from either NAFR or PLO 1662 land? The report should summarize the surveys made for exotic pollutants and the available data. (If the data is classified, the report should say so.) This is important for distinguishing between the Action and No Action alternatives, at least in regards to emissions from weapons testing in the current NAFR (which would presumably end under the No Action alternative).
Any facility within PLO 1662 should be included in this list. (If this data is classified, the report should say so.)
The table on Page A.10-5 should include land disturbance information of PLO 1662 land.
Table F-2 (Page F-3): The sequentially numbered Collector Watershed Designations for Emigrant Valley appears to omit "L-2". The data for this area should be included in the table.
Table F-3 (Page F-5): The sequentially numbered Alluvial Fan Designations for Emigrant Valley appears to omit "L-F2", "L-F3" and "L-F4". The data for these areas should be included in the table.
In a series of annual Presidental Determinations (95-45, etc.), President Clinton has exempted the Air Force from certain environmental reporting requirements which all other military facilities, classified or unclassified, must obey. The President states:
I hereby exempt the Air Force's operating location near Groom Lake, Nevada from any Federal, State, interstate or local provision respecting control and abatement of solid waste or hazardous waste disposal that would require the disclosure of classified information concerning that operating location to any unauthorized person.
It is plausible that certain environmental data concerning hazardous waste disposal could pose a risk to national security. For example, if a hostile foreign power had access to the exact composition of soil samples from a classified location, it might be able to deduce something about the secret weaponry tested there. There is no need, however, for the Air Force to provide that kind of detailed data in the LEIS. The LEIS is mainly a broad summary of environmental data and compliance. It is not necessary that the Air Force reveal the activities at a classified location, but it should be able to state that it is in compliance with environmental regulations there. It should also be able provide routine information about the natural environment and manmade artifacts (such as roads) that are plainly visible. Congress and the public may not need to know the exact nature of a certain hazardous waste site, but they should be informed that sites have been identified and be told how environmental clean-up will be affected by each of the proposed alternatives.
One weakness of the Presidential Determination is that it provides no geographic definition of the "operating location near Groom Lake, Nevada." We don't know if it includes only areas immediately adjacent to the base, the entire extent of PLO 1662 lands, or lands extending far into the existing Nellis Range and NTS. Judging from the omission of roads on Page 1-16 of the LEIS (as mentioned in Part II), the exemption seems to cover hundreds of square miles of the existing Nellis Range, the NTS and even portions of public land.
Another weakness is that the President provides no guidance on what "would require the disclosure of classified information" about the facility. Would the release of information about flora, fauna and geology require the disclosure of classified information? I am sure that certain conservative military managers would interpret it that way (and evidently they have prevailed in the preparation of this LEIS). By the same reasoning, though, one could argue that acknowledging the existence of the state of Nevada might, in some obscure way, reveal classified information about the Groom Lake facility. The fact is, the state of Nevada does exist, as a matter of public record, as do the roads, wildlife and water resources of the PLO 1662 lands. Withholding this kind of routine information may protect the Air Force politically, but it fails the test of reasonableness for the disclosure of classified information.
Without a geographic definition and without any guidance as to interpretation of the Presidential Determination, there are effectively no boundaries for the exemption, and the Air Force is free to apply it arbitrarily to any area within its control, inside or outside of the PLO 1662 land. An arbitary exemption means that the entire LEIS is meaningless, because any environmental data anywhere in the report can be omitted without notice. The bureaucratic risk is that the only information appearing in the LEIS might be that which is supportive of the sponsor's political agenda.
The other alternative is to provide clear statements in the LEIS about what data is classified and withheld from the public. As mentioned in Part I, the Air Force could provide a statement at the beginning of the LEIS outlining what kind of data is classified and under what authority it is being withheld. Then, elsewhere in the report where classified information is omitted, a single sentence can be inserted referring readers back to the original statement.
If the Air Force feels that it is not legally required to provide environmental data to Congress about PLO 1662, then it should say so in the beginning of the report. Likewise, if the Air Force chooses instead to prepare a classified supplement for the PLO 1662 land, at least its existence should be mentioned in the public report. Making these statements explicitly, with clear definitions of what kind of data is withheld and within what geographic area, protects the reliability of the rest of the LEIS.
Unfortunately, a classified supplement also presents some problems. One of these is that most members of Congress will not have adequate clearances to read it. However, they will be able to read the rest of the LEIS with the confidence that nothing is being silently omitted.
Another problem with a classified supplement is determining what kind of data belongs in it. For example, should information on area roads be withheld from the open LEIS, even if they appear on USGS topographic maps? Should the classified supplement include inherently unclassified data such as natural and cultural resources on PLO 1662 land, or should this data be provided in the public LEIS?
The Air Force has never had to deal with these problems because it has never said more than a few sentences publically about anything within the PLO 1662 land. About all it has acknowledged is that it "does have facilities at Groom Dry Lake." This longstanding silence about the area presents a "Catch-22" to the Air Force, because a generation of secretive behavior and protocols must now be modified. If the Air Force acknowledges that roads exist, then can employees reveal that they use the roads? If a survey has been conducted of natural resources, can the person who conducted it come forward to acknowledge his role?
For years, the official policy about the base at Groom Lake is that it "doesn't exist," and personnel who work at the facility or who are professionally aware of it are instructed to say nothing at all. Now, somebody must say something, at least to define what is classified, or the LEIS will be an ineffective document.
Glenn Campbell
12/30/98
|
Created: 12/30/98