[CPEO-MEF] Camp Bonneville concerns

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org>]

Submitted by Karen Kingston <Karen4theCamp@cs.com>

In my ongoing effort to apprise you and deliver transparency in the 
current matters regarding the Camp Bonneville fencing and 208 plan, 
newly discovered, I wish to share the following with you.  This is 
shared as a concerned Clark County resident and is a diary of my 
participation in the DoD/BRAC Camp Bonneville Project.

1.  US Army Corp of Engineer Mike Nelson, stated on record that the UXO 
Recon for the missing or down Fence along 1.4 miles of Camp Bonneville 
was not an action nor did it require a written report by the Corp of 
Eng.  He stated the Army did a 2 inch recon for UXO along the alleged 
fence construction line.  He stated he truly believes there is no 
underground ordinance in the area slated for construction, however as 
documents state this is a suspected or probable area for munition finds 
such as Howitzer Shells from WWI and WWII....the Army has currently 
determined the 2" depth recon is sufficient for construction. The Army 
has determined a verbal consultation with the Corp is sufficient.  This 
concerns me.

      A.  I have great concern for the fact that BRAC is making 
official decisions based on information relayed orally, therefore 
nontraceable by the Public and undocumented by usual Corp procedure, 
regarding UXO and Camp Bonneville.

      B.  BRAC is making decisions for public safety based solely on a 
2 inch depth recon in a construction area that will install metal posts 
up to 4 feet into Camp Bonneville soils.  The installation is typically 
... hammering the metal posts into the ground below while standing 
alongside the post.  The fenceline, is typical with small to medium 
sized rocks underground causing the installer to hammer with more force.

      C.  Historic Army protocol seems to be setting current standards 
precedent, in this ever changing world of UXO and War.  Camp Bonneville 
is now part of this global precedence or at very least continuing 
standards in the US that may or should be obsolete.

      D.  The Army threatened (my observation) the Camp Bonneville RAB 
for their diligence and concern for public safety by stating on record 
that ... if we questioned/objected the current terms of contract, they 
would pull the contract.  Quotes will come from Oct. and past 2005 CB 
RAB minutes. (I do applaud the Army honesty and willingness to discuss)

      E.  The Army stated at the Oct. 2005 RAB meeting in a negative 
remark to the Autumn Hills resident's in attendance, to the 
effect....First you want a fence and now you don't!  This is in response 
to the residents desire to be good neighbors and stewards to Clark 
County. One point of their concern, as stated in the meeting, is an 
adequate fire break which would also allow fence construction access for 
the Army contractors on the Army owned side of the property.  This is a 
group of people setting aside their immediate protection for the sake of 
others and they were ostracized.  The residents formally informed the 
Army that they desire further talks.  I am very concerned that the Army 
will make good on their remark to pull contracts to replace the downed 
and missing fence.

      F.  The known Kill Zone for shells noted as possible or probable 
that the workers, for the fence, may encounter is one that should 
include consideration of evacuation of any homes that are within this 
Zone while fence construction continues.  At this time and while the 
contract was determined and funded, the Army did not consider public 
safety with in mere scenario of a child or pet watching construction 
workers within this Zone.  This concerns me. (this is noted within the 
Oct. RAB minutes) Nationally, we have slated regulations and laws 
denoting everything from shoring up construction pits to safety glasses 
and yet the US Army negates explosion safety for civilians within 
proximity of a maintenance work site in a UXO area.

The precedence that was stated by the Corp in September and again noted 
in the October meeting, is one that concerns me.  Making changes to 
accepted protocol is never easy.  Protocol that includes factors of 
public safety considered catastrophic should be continually changing and 
keeping pace with Military endeavors.  I feel, we as historic onlookers, 
for the Camp Bonneville Cleanup Project...no matter who owns the 
property via transfer....should become vested as stewards and 
shareholders in matters such as this.

The current issue presented via the recovered document Clark County 
Areawide Water Quality Management Plan circa 1979, is one that I implore 
each of you to be available for shareholder advisories.
      A.  Worst case scenario, there is a pollution issue that should 
be looked at and may be ongoing at Camp Bonneville.  One that effects 
our water management to its very core.
      B.  Least case scenario, there was a minor issue that was then 
corrected.  Even at this level of assurance I, as a shareholder, am 
concerned.  A non-point pollution source was identified in a 17 million 
dollar federal grant to our community agencies to enable our local 
government valid and sustaining stewardship for ground water and our 
major streams, waterways, rivers, and lakes.  Not to mention the 
collateral benefits of bringing codes,etc to date and into a sustainable 
future for all our residents.  With this in mind, while the Army 
generated close out documents for itself, via the Army Corp of Eng. ,a 
questionable practice from my standpoint, it either determined or failed 
in its mission to obtain and document pertinent historic data for one of 
Camp Bonneville's most important Reports....The Archive Search Report 
and its Addendum.  This 208/Plan recovered document included work 
product from the Corp of Engineer itself, thus one would assume the 
document readily available for at least a comment in the ASR.  This 
greatly concerns me.

In my twenty-five year overview of Camp Bonneville and as I look to 
improve the quality of my local area by being diligent and responsible 
beyond my own interests, I find the above concerns as issues immediately 
effecting quality and safety factors that will not only change or touch 
the lives of people here, but those others in our nation and living 
around US Military bases worldwide.  We are small potatoes, and yet we 
should not continue a Bad Practice of Tombstones Before Safety Measures.

Camp Bonneville, a 1995 BRAC site, is on our turf and on our watch.

Karen Kingston
Proponent of WA State and Clark County
Shareholder in public safety issues
Co-Chair of the Camp Bonneville Restoration Board

--
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
http://www.cpeo.org

_______________________________________________
Military mailing list
Military@list.cpeo.org
http://www.cpeo.org/mailman/listinfo/military