[CPEO-MEF] Partnerships to support intra-federal land transfers

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org>]

The Bush Administration's proposal for a new round of base closures
reminds us of the need to improve the way federal property is cleaned
and transferred. This is true, not only for any new round of closures,
but for past closures and for installations being closed outside of the
official Commission process. In February I circulated a concept paper on
"aggregate buy-out," suggesting conditions that might make the
privatization of cleanup appropriate. This dealt with properties being
transferred to non-federal entities.

There is also a need to improve the cleanup, closure, and reuse process
for properties expected to remain in federal ownership. There are
numerous scenarios for federal transfer, but I will focus on two that
pose particularly difficult environmental challenges.

First, there are munitions ranges and chemical weapons facilities. These
properties stand out because they pose an acute public safety risk -
before, during, and even after cleanup. Many of these properties have
been or are being turned over - in some cases returned - to federal land
management agencies, such as the Interior Department's Fish and Wildlife
Service and the Agriculture Department's Forest Service. Though these
agencies often resist stewardship of such dangerous property, Congress
at times gives them no choice. For example, last year's Defense
Authorization Act dictated that the Vieques impact area will go to
Interior if the Navy stops training there.

The land management agencies do not have the resources to protect the
public from persistent safety risks. Even if the military undertakes to
study and remediate such properties, there is still a need to keep
people away from the hazards. Signs, fences, or notations on visitors'
maps simply won't do the job. I propose a systematic system of
partnerships between the Defense Department and the other agencies to
provide the requisite resources for effective, permanent access control.

Second, many closed and closing military bases, either by accident or
through careful management practices, have preserved wetlands
ecosystems. Sometimes those properties require cleanup. Sometimes they
require habitat restoration. Sometimes they require the removal of
buildings or debris. Most wetlands experts now propose the integration
of cleanup and ecological management, but cleanup money cannot, in
general, be used to implement or even study ecological restoration or
preservation. 

At Moffett Field, in my community, the Navy's cleanup depends upon the
future management of the wetlands, but the Navy appears constrained in
the use of cleanup money to consider wetlands management, particularly
since it has transferred most of the former Naval Air Station to NASA.
Neither NASA nor the Fish and Wildlife Service, which owns adjacent
property as part of the Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge - and which
could take over management or even ownership of the Moffett wetlands -
has the resources to develop wetlands restoration scenarios. Once again,
I propose a funding channel that would encourage wetlands management to
be integrated with wetlands cleanup, no matter who owns the property.

As with transfers to non-federal owners, the safe, environmentally sound
transfer of wetlands and ranges from the Defense Department to other
federal agencies depends upon the creation of constructive partnerships
among entities with different missions. Congress could help by
establishing a program to establish and fund such partnerships.




Lenny
-- 


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

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