2006 CPEO Installation Reuse Forum Archive

From: Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org>
Date: 26 May 2006 20:23:31 -0000
Reply: cpeo-irf
Subject: [CPEO-IRF] Camp Bonneville (WA) Restoration Advisory Board
 
[Submitted by Karen Kingston <Karen4theCamp@cs.com>]



May 25, 2006


I have a long history with the Army and BRAC process regarding Camp Bonneville Military Reservation (CB), Vancouver, Washington,


In my opinion, the Army's unwillingness to continue it's RAB for the full tenure of CB's Cleanup when community involvement and desire to participate in a RAB exists, justifies the following two ideologies:

1. During an Early Transfer process, in CB's case, the Governor must sign and oversee a FOSET, ESCA, and PPCD. All agencies become diligent as they bring forth documents for review, no one desires a legacy of litigation. If characterization documents have not been surfacing already, they then begin coming in ... and quickly, as Early Transfer should be termed Early Fast Track Transfer. In the case of the 1995 BRAC round closing CB, the Land Reuse was County planned and Army approved - prior to the disclosure of UXO Impact and Safety Fans over 90% of the property, upon CB leased land, and over boundary lines into areas now cropping with high-dollar residential subdivisions ... none of which was revealed until 1999 to 2002. In 1997, I was a Land Reuse Steering Committee member and I was given a letter from Brigadier General Pat Stevens stating CB's leased land did or would not contain remnants of military training. This letter was proffered as an Army show of trust stating they would not release dangerous UXO land into the public domain prior to being fully cleaned. Therefore, this letter stood for the property as a whole. I was then elated to begin a plan for a regional park upon land stated as "Pristine" property nearly ready for children. Until to my deep dismay, investigation and characterization began surfacing thus evidencing the Brigadier General either had been misinformed or was misleading trusting US citizens. Does the military close RAB's as fast a possible so the inconsistent varied-contractor data does not come back to haunt and attack? I see it as a BRAC lack of character to stand, facilitate, re-recommend or un-approve a Reuse Plan that suddenly, with the swipe of one report, no longer mitigates public homeland security or defines the Army intent of converting military land into a safe public reuse. Imagine, in the case of CB, 3800 acres of free-ranging regional park goers protected by signs and three foot fences, as 70% +/- of the property will be left without UXO surface clearance ... what is the risk to homeland security and liability? These are big questions and I see the Army run and hide via RAB discontinuation.

2. At the CB RAB, BRAC Chief Glynn Ryan has met with me, as community co-chair, for the dutiful purpose of meeting facilitation. In one such meeting he requested that I not "bring up or discuss" fence issues. As the RAB had begun asking for an Army statement in writing that fencing was regularly maintained and security existed. The community had just discovered the historic Artillery Impact Fans for 105 and 155 Howitzers were within new residential properties. No one has reported finding a shell, yet there was now an awakening regarding security and safety. My reason to cite this is to share conclusion: The Army later verified there were missing boundary fences for approximately 3.4 miles above both the Central Impact Area, secured with 2-3 foot barb-wire fence, and the Open (in use via lease) FBI shooting Range. This area is neighboring new subdivisions and this had not been disclosed during the 2003 Early Transfer, attempted unsuccessfully. The fence had been in disrepair and down for nearly 10 years, our Base Environmental Coordinator, at the time, reported in our minutes that he had personally gone along the fence line and it was maintained. Thus, my experience with BRAC is testimony to the fact BRAC does not desire an educated or inquiring public during RAB participation. CB is the martyr for this. At the last meeting Glynn Ryan attended, as acting co-chair, I asked, "Glynn, since the Department of Natural Resources leased land will be transferred under CB's early transfer one year later, will you keep this RAB onboard since the DNR land is now known to have UXO and a cleanup must ensue?" His answer was biting, "No way, you'd better bet I'm gonna close you down."

The BRAC Chief' is a civil servant government employee and he is charming and very good-natured. He is diligently working to do his job. Is it possible the flaw in the RAB Rule system and the Army's intent to close a RAB, the moment they feel legally justified, that BRAC and RAB Rule are not given defined guidance and management tools to enable resolution and Army integrity? Is it because RAB Rule is purposely defined to justify rapid conclusion via transfer?

The Army adage is to mobilize, stand, and hold. In the case of over 80 years of weapons training on Camp Bonneville the old Army adage was 'if you don't use it bury it'. It would be a national show of Army character to stand and hold a participating RAB while discoveries, technology, and contamination remediation plans are implemented, completed, and verified as successful actions.

At BRAC's conception, the BRAC process did not include a separation of UXO property versus chemically contaminated properties nor a rating system to differentiate a one-acre closure with asbestos in mess-hall walls versus 3000 acres with intact UXO and encroachment. This defining process begun after CB was closed and planned. RAB Rule and Military Guidance for RABs must evolve in partnership and enable a RAB continuance in public oversight while there is ongoing military contamination cleanup, which was Congress' original intent. RABs facilitate at the federal level. Privatization really has nothing to do with original intent. Will communities claim out against Early Transfers because the Department of Defense ineptly sees RAB discontinuation as a measure for the DoD to fully opt out? Historically, I have seen Americans rise in voice, civil disobedience, and legal actions when they feel legislation and Congressional or Executive Office intent have been impugned. If I am asked do I accept privatization with UXO contractors for UXO cleanup, I would have to say I promote privatization while the UXO contaminated property remains in the hands of the polluter. RABs are the only measure of checks and balance for public oversight. The next questions should relate to the potential for success versus the potential for resulting corruption in the DoD's advisory to the new transferees... Community oversight can continue via a Citizen Advisory Board or a Citizen Participation Board within the transferees planning and by the transferees' own organization.

Will The DoD stand by like Big Daddy with a big wallet or a Grinch with a vault? Will UXO cleanup and ground water contamination plumes be cleaned by Contractors who are more than willing to fight for more federal money? Or, will these privatized and pushed Contractors use the money they have for the sake of timelines? Regulators are over tasked and get very tired in UXO characterization that changes with new reports, the nation will be foolish to assume a regulatory agency is a check and balance. The nation will be foolish to assume any ambitious new owner can validate check and balance. Again, the original intent was RAB formation and continuation throughout a clean up paid for with DoD, Army, or BRAC federal tax dollars. RAB oversight should not follow changes in administrative procedure. RAB oversight should follow the trail of the tax procurement. The RAB should follow the dollar.


Respectfully,


Karen Kingston
Civic volunteer
Camp Bonneville Restoration Advisory Board Co-Chair
Vancouver, WA

Note: You are welcome to quote me on any or all of the foregoing as my private opinion.




--



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

  Prev by Date: [CPEO-IRF] Meeting about Hangar One at Moffett Field (CA)
Next by Date: [CPEO-IRF] Memphis Defense Depot (TN) waste excavation
  Prev by Thread: [CPEO-IRF] Meeting about Hangar One at Moffett Field (CA)
Next by Thread: [CPEO-IRF] Memphis Defense Depot (TN) waste excavation

CPEO Home
CPEO Lists
Author Index
Date Index
Thread Index