[CPEO-IRF] Camp Bonneville (WA) transfer

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org>]

Lenny,

Can you post this latest piece on Camp Bonneville?
Dvija Michael Bertish <dvija@pacifier.com>

/////////////////


Danger Still Lurks at Camp Bonneville

By the Rosemere Neighborhood Association

April 20, 2006

Despite repeated concerns from many knowledgeable community members at 
various public meetings, Clark County is on a fast track to receive Camp 
Bonneville in a "dirty transfer" from the US Army, meaning the County 
and its working partners will receive the property while it is still 
contaminated and covered with unexploded ordnance and 
munitions/explosives of concern.  County officials are hoping to have 
all agreements signed with the Army, the state and clean-up contractors 
by July 1, 2006 in order to initiate a devised clean-up plan of the 
property that may take several years.  The County's goal is to transform 
one third of this contaminated 3800 acre property into a free range 
public park, while explosive devices will remain hidden on the remainder 
of the property, the two sections separated by a mere three foot barbed 
wire fence that could easily be straddled by anyone of average height.

On April 19th, following about two years of haggling with Army 
officials, the Washington State Department of Ecology held a public 
meeting to answer questions and take testimony on a Pre-Purchase Consent 
Decree, a Superior Court Document that will serve as a contract between 
the State of Washington, Clark County, and the clean-up team (comprised 
of five engineering/environmental firms that have formed a limited 
liability non-profit corporation).  Various members of the public 
reiterated their concerns that the plan to transform this contaminated 
property into a public park is a bad idea, one Veteran of Foreign Wars 
calling the plan "insane."

Various members of the RNA attended the court reported and televised 
public meeting and gave testimony regarding the proposed Consent Decree. 
 Years ago, the County was appointed by the Army as the local Land 
Reuse Authority, and plans were initiated for the Army to transfer 
(dump) the property into County hands.  The Army has implemented a 
process to divest itself of a barrage of unwanted properties throughout 
the nation and the world, and somehow, Camp Bonneville has become a 
significant trend-setting property that will  be used to establish 
precedent by which the Army can lessen its liability for the 
environmental messes it has unleashed for decades.  Unfortunately, under 
the "dirty transfer" process, while the Army is lessening its burden, 
the recipients of the dirty property (Clark County in our case) will 
face an ever-growing burden of costs associated with cleanup, 
administrative fees, and the frustrations of dealing with the Army's 
non-compliance on Washington State Environmental Laws.  The Army claims 
that it does not even recognize Washington State Law, which leads one to 
wonder why decrees and contracts are even viable in this situation, 
meaning that the public fully expects the Army to violate the terms and 
conditions of such a contract, thereby causing the County to expend 
substantial dollars on court costs.  This is how the game has been 
played with the Army at Camp Bonneville going on ten years already, 
wherein the Army has repeatedly and purposefully failed to complete 
required reports and long-term clean-up plans for the property.

Amazingly, in spite of these tremendous setbacks and liability risks, 
Clark County insists on forging forward into the abyss of uncertainty 
about the hidden dangers at the Camp.  The Citizen's Restoration 
Advisory Board has worked for years to advise all parties that the 
clean-up plan and the transformation of the camp into a public park are 
not a good fit, but those warnings have so far fallen on deaf ears.

There are some extremely significant inadequacies in the contractual 
agreements being considered by the County at this time.  A listing of 
some of these items will follow:

1)      Commonly, part of a cleanup plan at a military base includes a 
process to define and analyze the risk of exposure by the end-users, or 
in our case, those that will use the park when it is complete.  This 
analysis is commonly performed by munitions experts who use very 
specialized computer programs that will generate data to determine the 
chances of a park user coming in contact with explosives that will 
remain on site at the property.  This analysis is broken down into units 
of time, such as hours of operation at the park, and will include 
statistics that will identify the number of people that could be injured 
at Camp Bonneville subject to specific site conditions. There has been 
no such risk assessment performed at Camp Bonneville, despite the fact 
that site characteristics (munitions on site and a feeble barbed-wire 
fence as a preventative measure) dramatically increase the chances of 
injury to humans coming into contact with explosives at the Camp. 
Advanced statistical analysis should have been performed long before any 
transfer documents were attempted.  How can a responsible local 
government enter into such an agreement without thoroughly understanding 
the risk in advance?  It appears that the County agrees that undefined 
risk, due to a lack of commonly applied risk assessment principles, is 
acceptable for our community residents.  And yet, when questioned as to 
whether they would allow their children to play in such a park under 
these circumstances, one state official grimly replied that he would.

2)      When the property transfers from the Army to the County, it will 
first be deeded to the clean-up team.  The clean-up team will be 
contracted to implement what members of the community feel to be an 
inadequate clean-up plan.  Initial studies estimated the clean up cost 
at Camp Bonneville to be nearly $100 million.  A recent county 
newsletter indicated that figure had fallen to $25 million, and in 
recent public meetings with the Army, that number fell even further to 
only $19 million.  Conversely, the current US Congressional Fiscal 
Budget projects a clean-up cost of  $47 million for Camp Bonneville with 
the property slated for transfer in another few years, not 2006.  Why 
does Congress have different information than Clark County, and why are 
there lower figures being negotiated at the local level (and at a faster 
timeline) that are less than half of what federal officials have been 
told? State officials indicate that the clean-up cost cap includes 
maintenance and operations fees that are intended to manage the public 
dangers at the Camp in perpetuity.  Members of the public agree that 
cost of remedial activities and associated administrative costs will 
deplete the clean-up budget, and there will be no money left to manage 
the property (including fire response at $20,000 annually) for 
twenty-five years, let alone a hundred years or more.  This means the 
local residents will have to pick up the slack in the long run. A county 
parks representative stated that the initial estimate of $100 million 
should never have been published, and the director of the clean-up team 
promised that actual clean-up costs will not even come close to the cost 
cap agreed to by the Army.  Despite these promises the public remains 
skeptical, especially in light of the fact that the extent of 
contamination is unknown.  There is no reliable data available to 
determine how many Howitzer missiles lay hidden in the Artillery Firing 
Ranges, and if those missiles exited the boundaries of the Camp and lay 
hidden beneath homes that were later built in neighborhoods immediately 
adjacent to the Camp. One thing is known for certain - 70% of the Camp 
will never been completely void of explosives, and all parties are aware 
that bombs will remain on site in perpetuity.  Members of the public do 
not agree that such a property is appropriate for a public park.

3)      Even when the property transfers, the County will encounter a 
host of deed restrictions, and County officials will forever have to 
administer specific processes in order to abide by these restrictions. 
In other words, the County will never be free and clear of the Army's 
oversight on any future use of the property.  Under such deed 
restrictions, the County's administrative costs will soar and the 
Governor's office will remain embroiled in an administrative quagmire as 
the approving entity of this property transfer. If the County wanted to 
pave a parking lot or move a lamppost, the Army would enact the 
cumbersome deed restrictions.   And anyone who has worked with the Army 
during this process knows that the Army's notorious bureaucratic red 
tape is costly and maddening.  Moreover, as acknowledged by the state, 
the public will have to be aware that they cannot stray from park trails 
or dig holes for tent pegs in certain areas of the park because of the 
dangers from explosives. Apparently, the deed restrictions that are part 
of the transfer contract will be the largest section of the agreement. 
Again, members of the public have declared that these characteristics 
are not appropriate for public space.

4)      Once the agreements have been signed, the County will not be 
able to recall the Army into additional clean-up plans for contaminants 
or hazardous waste within areas that were not thoroughly assessed or 
characterized. In other words, all parties are aware that there is an 
unknown quantity of explosive/hazardous materials hidden within the 
Central Impact Target Area and associated Artillery Firing Ranges.  If 
the County accepts the risk of the clean-up plan as currently defined, 
it cannot make the Army undertake additional clean-up costs in the 
future.   The only leverage the County will have is if entirely new 
contaminants are found in other areas.  Nothing found within the 
Artillery Firing Ranges or the Central Impact Area will be considered a 
new source, and therefore, if the cost cap is insufficient, it's the 
County's (and the local residents') tough luck.

5)      The Army has repeatedly stated that it has conducted an 
exhaustive archive search of historical documents to determine the 
nature and the level of contamination of the site, and the locations of 
the explosives.  The state seems to have accepted the Army's 
presentation of documents in this search.  However, members of the 
public are continuing the search and have readily identified documents 
that should have been part of the Army's records, but for unknown 
reasons have been ignored.  For example, there is a parcel of land known 
as the Livingston Pit outside the current boundaries of the clean-up 
work plan. The County plans to use this pit for gravel mining in the 
future.  Documents have surfaced that indicate the Livingston Pit was 
historically part of Camp Bonneville, but is not considered a part of 
the Camp at this time.  These documents indicate that the pit was known 
to contain explosives from the Army, but this is not part of the current 
clean-up plan.  These documents were internal to a state government 
agency, and thereby are credible sources of relevant and important 
information that should have been considered in the entire clean-up 
plan.  How will the County react when a backhoe or bulldozer that is 
digging for gravel accidentally ignites a missile or a bomb that might 
explode in the immediate vicinity of residential neighborhoods?   Should 
such an accident occur, the Army would remain free of liability in that 
the noted parcel is not represented within the transfer documents. 
Members of the public believe the archive search report has been 
marginalized to avoid the publication of such information.

6)      As stated earlier, the Army has failed to produce required 
studies and reports during the design and implementation of the clean-up 
plan.  The new non-profit clean up team (comprised of five 
engineering/environmental companies) will take over the Army's 
responsibilities as part of the cost of clean-up, and this team will 
produce the required documentation.  At anytime during this process, the 
Army can dispute the new team's findings, and refuse to fund any portion 
of the clean-up work plan devised by the new team.  The clean-up team's 
manager explains that, although this is also a concern to the County and 
the clean-up team, the contract allows for a "dispute resolution" 
process.  However, the Army has consistently displayed its lack of 
interest in dispute resolution, has refused to acknowledge Washington 
State Law which resulted in the state filing an enforcement order 
against the Army for failure to abide by these state environmental laws. 
 When the property transfer is complete, the state's enforcement order 
will be null and void.  The Army's liability will have been reduced, and 
the County's liability increased.  This contract is terribly one-sided 
in the Army's favor.  Dispute resolution is only effective when all 
parties are willing to negotiate.  Time and time again, the Army has 
refused to negotiate.  With this track record, members of the public 
feel that any form of contractual dispute resolution under these 
conditions will be futile, and once again, the County will be burdened 
with the costs of attempting to enforce the contract with the Army as a 
non-responsive party.

7)       Members of the public have not been allowed to review the 
project budget prior to the expiration of the public comment period, and 
the project budget is still being negotiated.  The public process 
requires that everyone have access to all elements of the clean-up plan, 
and this has been denied.  It is impossible for the public to comment 
thoroughly on the plan without all available information, especially 
when the state has arbitrarily decided to shorten the public comment 
period to accommodate the property transfer on an accelerated timeline.

8)      Members of the community should be allowed to voice their 
concerns directly to Governor Gregoire since she will finally authorize 
the property transfer from the Army to the County.  Direct access to the 
Governor, our senators and state representatives has been restricted, 
and the public has not been allowed to voice its concerns or participate 
in open dialogue on the subject of Camp Bonneville with our elected 
officials.  Members of the community have vital information that is 
unknown to our officials, and it is imperative that all parties are 
working from the same documented evidence before entering into 
contractual obligations.  To do otherwise would be foolish.

9)      There has been no plan identified for firefighting on the Camp 
Bonneville property.  The Department of Natural Resources has indicated 
that it will not send firefighters into an area that is known to contain 
explosives.  This leaves the community to question the public safety, 
especially for the homeowners adjacent to the Camp and park users.  What 
will happen if a power line goes down, or if a forest fire races out of 
control?  A strong east wind could easily escalate a forest fire, and 
hikers at the proposed trail heads would easily be stranded without 
being able to exit the park.  Add explosives to this scenario, and 
obviously, human casualties and extensive property damage are likely to 
occur.  This is a serious public safety and liability issue that has not 
been addressed, and the County will inherit the cost burden of fire 
protection.

10)   All of these items clearly show that the County's plan for a 
public park at this site is fraught with insurmountable problems and 
risks.  Surely, there could be an alternate use for this land, one that 
would not endanger the public to the extent possible with a public park. 
 Members of the public firmly believe that an alternate re-use for the 
land is in order.

--


Lenny Siegel
Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight
c/o PSC, 278-A Hope St., Mountain View, CA 94041
Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545
Fax: 650/961-8918
<lsiegel@cpeo.org>
http://www.cpeo.org

_______________________________________________
Installation_Reuse_Forum mailing list
Installation_Reuse_Forum@list.cpeo.org
http://www.cpeo.org/mailman/listinfo/installation_reuse_forum