Final FOSET for Sunflower Army Ammunition Plant

What we need you to do:
Please write a letter to Tony E. Spaar, and possibly Governor Sebelius. A list of questions/statements and a sample letter are provided (below) that you may want to consider as you write your own comments on this important matter. It is easy to use one, two, or more of the topics below to create your own letter and send it before March 26th.

The Final FOSET (Finding of Suitability for Early Transfer) for Sunflower Army Ammunition Plant has been submitted for public comment. The deadline for your comments is Saturday, March 26th. Your comments are important because all public comments and questions must receive a response. Please take the time to write your comments and send them to Mr. Tony Spaar at the address below. If you would like to send a copy of your letter to Governor Kathleen Sebelius, her contact information is printed below Mr. Tony Spaar's address.

Every single comment really makes a difference because they tally the number of public comments. Only a few comments signal to them that this issue is not important. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT! Please take a few minutes and consider the list and the sample letter below; then send your letter ASAP. Remember to include your name and address with your letter. If you would like to review the Final FOSET and accompanying documents, they are available at the following URL:
http://www.sfaap.net/Sunflower_Final_FOSET.htm

List of Question/Statements:

1. Why is the developer (Sunflower Redevelopment LLC) cleaning up the explosive hazards rather than the Army as originally planned? Will the developer have the same legal obligations and restrictions with regard to the clean up of explosive hazards as the Army? Will the protections for public safety in place for a federal entity (such as the Army) also be part of the arrangement for the developer's clean up? The FOSET does not adequately address these concerns nor answers these questions.
2. Will the RAB (Restoration Advisory Board) continue in the same capacity with the same members after the FOSET? The Army has provided funding for the continuation of the RAB but there is no requirement that the new owner continue the RAB. The RAB has been functioning for years in the public interest relating to the clean up of Sunflower. If there is no requirement that the new owner/developer continue the existing RAB, public input and oversight of the clean up could be seriously jeopardized. The FOSET does not adequately address these concerns.
3. The Johnson County Comprehensive Land Use Plan (also known as the Community in a Park Plan) which was approved on July 23, 1998 is specifically identified for the intended reuse of the SFAAP land. This plan has a number of flaws and is no longer viable given the location of landfills on the site and the nature of the contamination and clean up contemplated. It is widely recognized as being obsolete. It has also not been brought to a public hearing since 1998. Will a public hearing on the land use plan occur before the FOSET is finalized? If not, when will the public have an opportunity to discuss the future land use issues for SFAAP? When will a new development plan be created and by whom will it be created? What involvement will the newly established Sunflower Redevelopment Authority have in the land use issues? These questions and concerns have not been adequately addressed and answered in the FOSET.
4. Since many of the land use issues are involved in contracts with KU, K-State, JCPRD, and De Soto, shouldn't public comments on the land use be requested before the contracts are signed? The process should be transparent to all decision makers and the public and not negotiated secretly. The FOSET does not allow for such public comment before it is too late.
5. Asbestos is a serious concern for the residents in the surrounding communities. Asbestos flakes have been found on residents' properties after buildings were burnt on SFAAP. On page six of the Final FOSET, there is the following statement: "Any asbestos containing material (e.g. tansite siding and roofing felt) will be removed from the buildings/structures to the extent practicable prior to thermal decomposition. The disclaimer "to the extent practicable" is a very serious concern and must be removed from the statement because it allows the burning of asbestos when the developer determines that it is not practicable to remove the asbestos by other means. The burning of asbestos puts the surrounding neighbors in danger of asbestos contamination by airborne asbestos flakes. How does the FOSET assure that the public will be protected in this regard?
6. The Governor stated that a significant amount of land (at least 2000 to 3000 acres) must be devoted to a Research Park area. Why haven't 2000 to 3000 acres for a Research Park been included as part of the land use plan? In fact, the Governor has said that a research park at Sunflower was one of her top priorities and that she would not sign a final FOSET unless it devoted a significant amount of land to a research park.

Governor Sebelius has stated:
"I will continue to work toward a final plan for Sunflower that would devote a significant portion of the site to a life sciences research park. A research park, as part of a larger development, would be an engine of growth for the region for decades to come. It would attract creative, talented people to our region and create jobs not only for today's workers, but also for our children and grandchildren,..."

Gov. Kathleen Sebelius has warned she wouldn't approve any redevelopment of the defunct Sunflower Army Ammunition Plant that didn't include a life sciences research park developed in cooperation with Kansas University.

"A substantial portion of the Sunflower site should be devoted to a life sciences research park," Sebelius wrote in a letter sent to the Johnson County Commission. "This issue will be central to my approval" of the project.

Sample Letter:

Commander's Representative, Sunflower Army Ammunition Plant

Attn: Mr. Tony E. Spaar
Department of the Army
Sunflower Army ammunition Plant
P.O. Box 640
De Soto, Kansas 66018 -0640

Dear Mr. Spaar:

This letter represents my public comments regarding the FOSET for Sunflower Army Ammunition Plant:

1. The Governor has stated that a significant amount of land (at least 2000 to 3000 acres) must be devoted to a Research Park area. Why haven't 2000 to 3000 acres for a Research Park been included as part of the land use plan? In fact, the Governor has said that a research park at Sunflower was one of her top priorities and that she would not sign a final FOSET unless it devoted a significant amount of land to a research park. How are these concerns and requirements addressed in the FOSET?
2. The Johnson County Comprehensive Land Use Plan (also known as the Community in a Park Plan) which was approved on July 23, 1998 is specifically identified for the intended reuse of the SFAAP land. This plan has a number of flaws and is no longer viable given the location of landfills on the site and the nature of the contamination and clean up contemplated. It is widely recognized as being obsolete. It has also not been brought to a public hearing since 1998. Will a public hearing on the land use plan occur before the FOSET is finalized? If not, when will the public have an opportunity to discuss the future land use issues for SFAAP? When will a new development plan be created and by whom will it be created? What involvement will the newly established Sunflower Redevelopment Authority have in the land use issues? These questions and concerns have not been adequately addressed and answered in the FOSET.
3. Will the RAB (Restoration Advisory Board) continue in the same capacity with the same members after the FOSET? The Army has provided funding for the continuation of the RAB but there is no requirement that the new owner continue the RAB. The RAB has been functioning for years in the public interest relating to the clean up of Sunflower. If there is no requirement that the new owner/developer continue the existing RAB, public input and oversight of the clean up could be seriously jeopardized. The FOSET does not adequately address these concerns.
4. Why is the developer (Sunflower Redevelopment LLC) cleaning up the explosive hazards rather than the Army as originally planned? Will the developer have the same legal obligations and restrictions with regard to the clean up of explosive hazards as the Army? Will the protections for public safety in place for a federal entity (such as the Army) also be part of the arrangement for the developer's clean up? The FOSET does not adequately address these concerns nor answer these questions.
5. Since many of the land use issues are involved in contracts with KU, K-State, JCPRD, and De Soto, shouldn't public comments on the land use be requested before the contracts are signed? The process should be transparent to all decision makers and the public and not negotiated secretly. The FOSET does not allow for such public comment before it is too late.
6. Asbestos is a serious concern for the residents in the surrounding communities. Asbestos flakes have been found on residents' properties after buildings were burnt on SFAAP. On page six of the Final FOSET, there is the following statement: "Any asbestos containing material (e.g. tansite siding and roofing felt) will be removed from the buildings/structures to the extent practicable prior to thermal decomposition."The disclaimer "to the extent practicable" is a very serious concern and must be removed from the statement because it allows the burning of asbestos when the developer determines that it is not practicable to remove the asbestos by other means. The burning of asbestos puts the surrounding neighbors in danger of asbestos contamination by airborne asbestos flakes. How does the FOSET assure that the public will be protected in this regard?

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Your Name

Please send your comments today. The future land use of SFAAP will affect the future of Johnson and Douglas County. Thank you!