DHS PROPOSES MAKING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS SECRET

[Viking12]

Yet another abuse of "TWOT." Any additional information would be useful.

Please submit your comments by only one of the following
means: (1) By mail to: Environmental Planning, Office of Safety and
Environment, Management Directorate, Department of Homeland Security,
Washington, DC 20528 (2) By hand delivery to:
Environmental Planning, Office of Safety and Environment, Management
Directorate, Department of Homeland Security, Anacostia Naval Annex,
Building 410, 245 Murray Lane, SW., Washington, DC 20528.
(3) By Fax to: (202) 772–9749.


The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposed on June 14, 2004, making secret part or all of some Environmental Impact Statements on its actions.

If finalized, the proposal would carve a major loophole in the 34-year-old law which is the keystone of much modern environmental law — the National Environmental Policy Act. NEPA required that the federal government publicly disclose the environmental impacts of major federal actions before they are taken.

The DHS initiative was published as a "proposed directive" in the Federal Register of June 14, 2004 (pages 33043-33066). The proposal is currently open for public comment; the deadline for submitting comments is July 14, 2004.

The directive applies only to DHS actions, but these actually cover a broad array of topics that environmental reporters might cover. DHS jurisdiction includes things ranging from oil spills (Coast Guard); hazmat and hazardous transportation; flood plain designation (FEMA); and chemical plant security; to standards for cleanup after a nuclear accident.

The directive would restrict access to part or all of some Environmental Impact Statements (and Assessments). It includes provisions for segregating the portions DHS does not want to publish and publishing the rest. It also allows DHS to black out the whole document if it chooses.

Sometimes the documents that support the conclusions and findings in an EIS are as important as the EIS itself. The directive would apply to them, too. Without them, it is often impossible for journalists or public to challenge effectively the findings in an EIS.


http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/06jun20041800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2004/pdf/04-13111.pdf

[KT2000]

1. I smell a takeover

A cursory reading tells me that this is where a political appointee can essentially take over a project under the auspices of the Homeland Security and call the shots.

Thanks for posting this.

Bye bye America!

[Old and In the Way]

2. The War on America continues.

What if Al Qaeda had penetrated the top echelons of our government? How would the actions of their administration be any different from this administration?

I guess this is how Republicans deal with our freedoms....that hate us for having knowledge of their agenda.

[comradebillyboy]

3. that would violate the national environmental policy act of

1974, one of tricky dick's better ideas. nepa as the act is known, requires that environmental impact statements be public. it provides mechanisims to protect classified information, but the whole point of an environmental impact statement is to inform the public and all those that would be affected by a major federal action impacting theenvironment. even impact statements for the operation of nuclear weapons complex facilities, such as los alamos national lab, are public documents.

but then bush only answers to god, not to the law

[Viking12]

4. The proposal is to radically change NEPA,

make the information secret, and put the decision-making into the hands of those "concerned for our security".

<sarcasm>Certainly there won't be any abuse of that power for corporate gain <end sarcasm>