[CPEO-MEF] Heritage and Dilemma

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org>]

From: Marianne Thaeler <MThaeler@aol.com>, RAB Member Fort Bliss 

HERITAGE RANGES AND A DILEMMA 

There exist undeveloped lands for which the military has continuing
responsibility for munitions impact areas, which will never be cleaned
up in our lifetime or in the lifetimes of our children. 

These lands have not been disturbed for decades and now have stable
vegetation and ecosystems, so that clean up would totally destroy the
natural resources. Some of these lands are steep mountainous slopes,
while others are most valuable left alone and undisturbed for ecological
reasons. There are no known threats to underground water. 

Some areas are now classified as Formerly Used Defense sites (FUDS) or
BRAC sites, while others are classified as Closed Ranges on active
installations. I can name some, you can name others. 

I wish to suggest that there be enacted a new legal land classification
or category. For the purpose of this writing I use the name Heritage
Range for simplicity only. The name is unimportant, but it must be a
name clearly recognizable in terms of its definition. This new category
should be defined simply - in terms of "shall be" and "must be"; no
"maybes" about it which would encourage the avoidance of clean up for
any reason. Once the category is defined, a set of management guidelines
would be needed. These might include provisions for monitoring wells and
utility easements. 

We as subscribers to this List Serv are knowledgeable persons from all
over the United States. Thus I wish to suggest some responsible
discussion, leaving ones special interests aside. 

Now the dilemma - the fear factor, or lack thereof, and public malaise.
Some areas have laid fallow for so long that vegetation has stabilized,
and no one remembers why the area is dangerous and contaminated with
UXO. Some are in urbanized or urbanizing areas, some are not. 

Fear alone is no longer an effective deterrent. Put bluntly, no one
remembers when anyone was killed or maimed out there! 

A sort of public malaise has set in; over time fear is lost. For some in
the 40-something year old group, risk is no longer a major factor,
unless it is related to investments or ones job, of course. (I call it
the "Star Wars effect.") 

There lies the dilemma. 

Therefore, I wish to suggest this new category be easily recognizable
for publicity purposes, as DANGER-KEEP OUT- NO HUMANS ALLOWED!, by its
definition. The name should follow. 

For example: "Wilderness" has been defined simply by Congress, as a
Congressionally designated pristine roadless area of over 5,000 acres.
(The Wilderness Act does not name any specific Department of federal
government to manage a Wilderness Area.) 

I personally believe the use of the word "Wilderness" would be unwise,
since the Act does not accurately define or distinguish areas
contaminated with UXO, and would raise more issues than answers. 

"Heritage" connotes a placid history without any semblance of a fear
factor. 

THE END 

-- 


Lenny Siegel
Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight
c/o PSC, 222B View St., Mountain View, CA 94041
Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545
Fax: 650/961-8918
lsiegel@cpeo.org
http://www.cpeo.org

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~