EPA 171-R-92-017
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office Of
The Administrator
(A101F)
EPA171-R-92-017
PB-92-182427
July 1992
Future Land
Use Scenarios
For Federal Facilities
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF FUTURE LAND USE SCENARIOS
FOR
FORT RICHARDSON
Prepared by:
Scott Leland
EPA Region 10
Federal Facility Section
August 26, 1991
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Map
TABLE OP CONTENTS
Introduction ......................
Land Use in the Area Surrounding Fort Richardson ....
Projections for Continued Army Ownership
of Fort Richardson ....... ......
Scenarios for Future Land Use at Fort Richardson
a) North Anchorage Land Agreement
b) Parceling . ...............
c) Additional Complications Due to Groundwater .....
d) OEA Survey ......................
1
1
1
2
2
3
4
4
4
. . . . 7-8
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report was furnished to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency by the student identified on the cover page, under a National
Network for Environmental Management Studies fellowship.
The contents are essentially as received from the author. The
opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed are those of the author
and not necessarily those of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Mention, if any, of company, process, or product names is
not to be considered as an endorsement by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
This memorandum addresses future land use plans for the Fort
Richardson and the surrounding area. The scenarios presented here
were developed after reviewing surrounding land uses and
information available from Fort Richardson.
2. SITE DESCRIPTION
Fort Richardson is the largest of the army posts in Alaska and is
headquarters for the 6th Infantry Division (Light), which also
includes Fort Wainwright and Fort Greely. Fort Richardson employs
approximately 6,000 civilian and military personnel. The post
comprises approximately 62,000 acres (97 square miles).
Facilities include an airfield and hangars, family housing units,
army barracks, several schools, a community center, a power plant,
numerous large warehouses, commissary, firehouse, bank, theatre,
other small shops and buildings, a cemetery, and thousands of acres
of open land.
3. LAND USE IN THE AREA SURROUNDING FORT RICHARDSON
Fort Richardson is located within the municipality of Anchorage in
south-central Alaska (see map, page 7). The reservation is bounded
by Anchorage proper and Elmendorf Air Force Base to the west and
Eagle Bay and Knik Arm in the northwest and north. The southern
and eastern boundaries traverse undeveloped lands along much of the
boundary, most of which is Chugach State Park. The Town of Eagle
River is located on the eastern border. The Glenn Highway bisects
Fort Richardson.
The Fort Richardson region is characterized by flat lowlands and
gently rolling hills, open low-spruce forests, numerous streams,
ponds, and treeless wetlands.1
Wildlife migration occurs through the Ship Creek Basin, part of
which passes through Fort Richardson, south of Glenn Highway.
Wetlands are another important part of the base, located primarily
in the northern portions of the facility. The largest and
ecologically most important tidal march is Eagle River Flats,
located along the lower section of the Eagle River at Eagle Bay.
Portions of this area are currently contaminated with unexploded
munitions.
Source: Draft document, Field Investigation Plan for the Confirmation of
Fire Training Pits at Fort Richardson, Fort Wainwright, and Fort Greely
Alaska. Prepared by: Ecology and Environment, Inc., Anchorage. December 28,
1990.
Fort Richardson, Page 1
-------
4. PROJECTIONS FOR CONTINUED ARMY OWNERSHIP OF FORT RICHARDSON
Fort Richardson was established in November 1940, and has operated
continuously ever since. Its primary mission was originally to
defend Alaska against foreign invaders. During World War II, Fort
Richardson was a staging and supply area with the troop size
varying from 7,800 to more than 15,000. In 1950, the Army
established a new cantonment area on the northern part of the
installation and released the land on the western section of the
Fort to the Air Force. Elmendorf Air Force Base was built on this
section of land.
Since 1986, Fort Richardson has been under the command of the 6th
Infantry Division.
Official documents call for the continued use of Fort Richardson
by the Army. There is some indication, however, that the future
life of the base may be limited. Base personnel in the
Environmental Resources Branch (ERB) have expressed the belief that
Fort Richardson will be recommended for closure within the next
three to four years by the Base Closure Commission. The feeling
among ERB personnel is that the Fort "squeaked by" in not being
recommended for closure by the 1991 Commission. The Commission is
required to make new closure and realignment recommendations to the
President by July 1993, and again by July 1995.
5. SCENARIOS FOR FUTURE LAND USE AT FORT RICHARDSON
a) The North Anchorage Land Agreement; The North Anchorage Land
Agreement (NALA) governs the disposition of over one-half of Fort
Richardson, if and when it is ever determined excess to the needs
of the Department of Defense. NALA was signed in 1982 by the State
of Alaska, the Municipality of Anchorage and Eklutna, Inc. (a
Native corporation formed under provisions of the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act). Approximately 42,300 acres of Fort
Richardson and Elmendorf Air Force Base military lands are involved
in the agreement. According to a summary of this agreement:
"Certain of these areas, which in the agreement are specified
as public interest lands, will be transferred to the state.
These include the Eagle River Flats (as wildlife habitat); a
large tract south of Eagle river and east of the Glenn Highway
(as a key winter range for moose) ; a corridor of land
extending upland 200 feet from the line of ordinary high water
of each bank of Eagle River (as a public greenbelt) ; 160 acres
at either Clunie or Six-Mile lake (for a future floatplane
base); and as much as 1,000 acres from an area south of Eagle
River (for mass or bulk transportation purposes - probably a
new railroad yard). Also conveyed to the state will be other
Fort Richardson, Page 2
-------
interest including the existing Alaska Railroad right-of-way
and the right to realign the track if needed....
"An additional 3,000 acres of public interest lands which
are not yet identified, will be conveyed to the Municipality
of Anchorage for schools, police stations, libraries, local
parks and recreational facilities, greenbelts and other
municipal purposes....
"The remaining former military lands will be conveyed to
Eklutna, Inc., and the Municipality of Anchorage as tenants
in common. These lands are referred to as development lands.
Eklutna, Inc., and the Municipality of Anchorage will prepare
a land use plan for these lands in the event transfer of
military land is to occur....11
Regardless of the impact of NALA, the closure of Fort Richardson
will initiate a political process of negotiation and compromise
between all parties interested in the disposition of the land. The
Army will want to sell as much of the land and facilities as
possible in order to recoup some of its investment; the
Municipality of Anchorage may attempt to acguire additional
portions for free or below market value, and it will probably
attempt to control reuse scenarios through local zoning ordinances;
there will be political and economic pressure to bring in
businesses and industries to replace the civilian jobs lost as a
result of the base's closure; and there will likely be special
interest groups lobbying for additional wildlife preserves, parks
and other public uses.
The experience of current base closures (including those at Pease,
Norton, George, Mather and Chanute Air Force Bases) suggests that
the local community's reuse plan heavily influences the outcome of
a base transfer. In the case of Fort Richardson, NALA appears to
be the only current reuse plan. However, more detailed plans will
likely be developed when the base is eventually announced for
closure.
b) Parceling; In addition to the provisions of NALA as summarized
above, the transfer of Fort Richardson's land and facilities to new
ownership will depend on certain legal issues. One of the key such
issues is the extent to which current law will allow clean parcels
of sites on the National Priority List to be separated from
contaminated parcels and subsequently transferred to new ownership.
For example, if the areas of groundwater contamination at Fort
Richardson must be fully remediated before any uncontaminated land
TJortA Anchorage Land Agreement. (A summary description of the actual
agreement, provided by: Municipality of Anchorage, Economic Development and
Planning Department/ P.O. Box 196650/ Anchorage, AK 99519. Tel: (907) 343-
4222. [Contact: Tom Nelson, Supervisor of Land Use Planning.]) Page 2.
Fort Richardson, Page 3
-------
can be transferred to new owners, then the Army will be forced to
maintain ownership of the entire base well into the next century
until remedial pump-and-treat operations are completed.
A related issue is whether current law will allow the Army to
transfer land overlying areas with groundwater contamination after
remedial equipment has been installed and remediation begun (but
before remediation has been completed). If not, then once again
the Army will be forced to maintain ownership of such land well
into the next century, until remedial ground water pump-and-treat
operations are completed.
c) Additional complications due to aroundwater. For the purposes
of hazardous waste remedial work, four categories of land use are
often considered: Residential, Industrial, Recreational, and
Agricultural. These categories are used for any surface area in
or around the affected site. For subsurface areas, and
particularly for groundwater, the applicability of these separate
categories becomes less clear due to the complications caused by
the natural movements of the underlying aquifer.
For example, in section (e) below it is suggested that the runway
at Fort Richardson may continue to be used for aviation, for which
the Industrial classification is applicable. The underlying
groundwater, however, may be more appropriately classified
Residential, since this is a likely scenario for some of the
surface areas within a mile of the airfield. The extent to which
such distinct classifications can overly the same property is
unclear. In such cases, it may be necessary to assign both surface
and subsurface areas of the property to the same classification,
selecting the classification which corresponds to the greatest
exposure level in this case Residential. However, no
recommendation for resolving this issue is made in this memorandum.
The issue is raised here because it needs to be resolved before the
assignment of future use categories can be finalized.
d) PEA survey. A survey conducted by the Department of Defense's
Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) offers some insight into
possible future uses of Fort Richardson land and facilities.
Entitled "25 Years of Civilian Reuse," the survey gives 100
examples of base closures and their subsequent uses.3 The results
of this survey are used to help formulate the scenarios suggested
below.
e) Likely scenarios. Based on the results of the OEA survey and
the characteristics of Fort Richardson and the surrounding area,
the following future scenarios are suggested:
See: 25 Years of Civilian Reuse: Summary of Completed Military Base
Economic Adjustment Projects, 1961-1986. Published by the Office of Economic
Adjustment (Department of Defense), Washington, D.C. April-May 1986.
Fort Richardson, Page 4
-------
Multiple uses are likely. Fort Richardson contains housing,
warehouses and other structures, an airfield, plus large
amounts of vacant land. It is unlikely that this entire area
will be dedicated toward a single use in the future. In OEA's
survey, 81 percent of the former bases listed more than one
new occupant after transfer to the civilian sector. At least
66 percent show distinct categories of occupant and use a
municipal airport and an industrial park, for example, or a
community college and a housing center.
Portions of Fort Richardson may be transferred to the Air
Force for adjoinment to Elmendorf Air Force Base. Elmendorf
recently received personnel evacuating Clark AFB in the
Philippines after a volcanic eruption threatened base
activity. With the anticipated closure of Clark AFB,
Elmendorf now appears to be in a good position for an expanded
role within the Air Force, and it could use the airway and
housing facilities currently at Fort Richardson for future
growth.
Even if Elmendorf AFB does not take over portions of Fort
Richardson, there is a reasonable possibility that the
airfield and hangars will continue to be used for aviation.
In OEA's survey, of the 54 former Air Force Depots and Naval
Air Stations with runway facilities, 41 (or 76%) listed
aviation as one of their uses after transfer to the civilian
sector.
Unless deed restrictions or other institutional controls are
employed, a Residential scenario cannot reasonably be ruled
out for those areas containing housing facilities. In OEA's
survey, about one quarter (26%) of the former depots contained
residential developments. In no case was a residential
development the only use of a former depot.
A likely use for the remaining buildings in the administration
area is some form of industrial park. (Seventy-four percent
of the former depots surveyed in OEA's study were at least
partially devoted to business or industrial parks).
Much of the land south of Glenn Highway is undeveloped, and
approximately 20,000 acres are contaminated with unexploded
ordnance. Due to prohibitive costs, it is unlikely that the
Department of Defense will remediate this area to levels that
would allow for unrestricted development. Consequently, some
sort of institutional control is likely for this area. One
possible scenario is that the land will be adjoined to
adjacent Chugach State Park as some form of restricted
wildlife refuge.
Fort Richardson, Page 5
-------
O Some of the wetlands in Eagle River Flats are also
contaminated with unexploded ordnance. This area will also
likely require some form of institutional control to restrict
future use.
The diagram on page 8 shows, in rough outline, how these scenarios
might be translated to a map of Fort Richardson. It should be
emphasized that the diagram is merely suggestive and should not be
interpreted as a final evaluation of future land use
classifications or boundaries.
Fort Richardson, Page 6
-------
s-
£3
ARCTIC OCEAN
PACIFIC OCEAN
FORT RICHARDSON
Source: Ecology tc Environment. Inc. 1990
FIGURE 1
FIRE TRAINING PIT SITES
Anchorage. Ft. Greely. Ft. Wainwright. Alaska
CONTRACT DACA85-88-D-0014
TITLE:
SITE LOCATION MAP
Project No. KM5110
ecology
-------
0 (Undeveloped)
RESIDENTIAL and ;
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL v
^ (Restricted use)
l"y/' i^s-v>: ''
irl-S^t^tf '^l^ll ;I5
FIGURE 2: Possible future uses of. property and facilities at Fort
Richardson (62,000 acres). The scenarios presented here are merely suggestive
and should not be construed as a final evaluation of future land use
classifications or boundaries.
Page g
-------
MEMORANDUM ON FUTURE LAND USE SCENARIOS
FOR
FAIRCHILD AIR FORCE BASE
Prepared by:
Scott Leland
EPA Region 10
Federal Facility Section
August 22, 1991
TABLE OF CONTENTS
4. Projections for Continued Air Force Ownership
of Fairchild AFB
5. Scenarios for Future Land Use at Fairchild AFB
a) Politics
b) Comprehensive Plan ..................
1
1
1
3
4
..... 4
4
... 4
4
4
.... 8-10
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
This memorandum addresses future land use plans for Fairchild Air
Force Base (Fairchild AFB) and the surrounding area. The scenarios
presented here were developed after reviewing surrounding land uses
and Fairchild AFB site plans.
2. BASE DESCRIPTION
Fairchild is located 12 miles southwest of the city of Spokane in
Spokane County, Washington (see map on page eight). The base
occupies 4,499 acres. The closest private residences lie adjacent
to the northern base perimeter along Route 2.
Approximately 5,300 military personnel and their dependents live
on the base; 1,900 military personnel live off-base. In addition,
a total of about 855 civilians from surrounding communities are
employed on the base.
Facilities at Fairchild include 1,580 family housing units, plus
373 other buildings (with over 6.02 million square feet of interior
space), including warehouses, stores, schools, and a hospital.
There are also 91.6 miles of paved roads, and an airfield with over
2.3 million square yards of pavement.
None of the land on Fairchild is leased or made available to
surrounding land owners. The only exception is an easement for a
local farmer for use of a private access road.
3. LAND USE IN THE AREA SURROUNDING FAIRCHILD AFB
There is no publicly owned land in the area immediately surrounding
Fairchild AFB. Most of the surrounding area is made up of
privately held farms; there is also a small residential area along
the northeast corner of the base, on the north side of Route 2.
According to the Spokane City Planning Department,1 most of the
land within one mile of Fairchild is designated as rural land,
which allows a maximum density of one building unit per 10 acres.
(The land immediately surrounding Airway Heights is designated for
industrial use, as is much of the land extending further east
toward Spokane. Despite this industrial designation, most of the
land is currently either vacant or used for agriculture.) Existing
designations and buffers are designed specifically to protect the
area surrounding Fairchild from experiencing further growth to
prevent interference with base operations.
Contact: Pat Frankovic, Spokane County Planning Department/ North 721
Jefferson Street/ Spokane, WA 99260. Tel: (509) 456-2205).
Fairchild AFB, Page 1
-------
Communities that are close to the base include the city of Spokane,
Airway Heights and Medical Lake:2
O Spokane (population 173,700; 12 miles east of FAFB) is the
economic capital of the region. Its economy is heavily based
on service industries and wholesale/retail trade. Fairchild
AFB is the largest single employer of the area.
O Airway Heights (population 1,975; 1.5 miles northeast of FAFB),
is heavily dependent on FAFB for its economic well-being.
O Medical Lake (population 3,900; approximately one mile south of
FAFB) is a residential community, with a number of its residents
commuting to the city of Spokane and Fairchild AFB for their
employment. Many residents are retired military personnel.
State institutions, including Eastern State Hospital, are the
major employers of city residents.
It is also noteworthy that the Spokane International Airport is
located approximately four miles east of Fairchild AFB. The
proximity of the airport supports the notion that Fairchild's
airfield may continue to be used for aviation in the future, should
the base be closed.
The larger area of Spokane County has approximately 367,200 people
(1990 estimate), or about 208.2 people per square mile. (Without
the city of Spokane, the population density is approximately 106
people per square mile.) Neighboring Lincoln County, which lies
about six miles west of Fairchild AFB, has a population density of
only 3.8 persons per square mile.
The growth rate in the area is sluggish, with the population of the
county having increased about 7.4 percent in ten years (from
341,835 in 1980 to 367,200 in 1990). Additional growth rates are
given below:
City Growth Rate Population/Years
Spokane 1.4% in ten years 171,300 (1980) to 173,700 (1990)
Airway Heights 14% in ten years 1,730 (1980) to 1,975 (1990)
Medical Lake 8.3% in ten years 3,600 (1980) to 3,900 (1990)
Table 1 gives a breakdown of land ownership in Spokane County,
showing that private ownership accounts for over 90 percent of all
lands.
information on these three cities (with the exception of the
population figures, which have been updated) is taken from pages 7 and 8 of
the Community delations Plan, Fairchild Air Force Base, March 1990.
Fairchild AFB, Page 2
-------
Percent
Acres Total
Private Land 1,024,662 91.0%
Public Lands
Federal 21,396 1.9%
State 51,371 4.6%
County 27,691 2.5%
TOTAL . 1,965,651 100.0%
Table 1. Breakdown of land ownership in Spokane County. (Sources Washington
State Atlas and Databook: 1990 Edition. Published by The Information Press,
1990. Page 15.)
4. PROJECTIONS FOR CONTINUED AIR FORCE OWNERSHIP OF FAIRCHILD AFB
Fairchild AFB opened in 1942 and has operated continuously ever
since. The base will celebrate its 50th anniversary next year.
Fairchild appears to be well regarded within the Department of
Defense; in 1985, it was appointed a "Model Installation" by the
Deputy Secretary of Defense.
The Air Force has announced specific plans and realignments for
Fairchild AFB only as far as mid-1995. Neither the 1988 nor the
1991 Base Closure Commissions recommended the base for closure,
however, and there has been no indication that the base will be a
target for closure when the Base Closure Commission makes new
recommendations in 1993 and again in 1995. A "Comprehensive Plan"
published by FAFB in February 1991 speaks of continuing operations
"for many more years",4 and suggests that the land use strategies
developed therein will carry the base "to the year 2000."5
These plans are from page 18 of an Air Force Public Announcement Fact
Sheet on Base Closures and Realignments released approximately May 1991: "Four
actions are being announced. The 92nd Bombardment Wing will lose 2 KC-135R
aircraft in mid-1993 and gain 3 B-52H aircraft in late 1993. The Castle AFB,
Calif., closure recommendation realigns the Combat Crew Training missions and
5 KC-135R aircraft to Fairchild AFB in early 1995. The mid-1991 base manpower
authorization of 4,117 full-time, 1,046 drill, and 772 civilians is projected
to increase by 1,221 full-time and 89 civilians by mid-1995."
/
See: Comprehensive Plan: Fairchild Air Force Base: Executive Summary.
Printed February 1991. Page 1.
ibid, page 23.
Fairchild AFB, Page 3
-------
5. SCENARIOS FOR FUTURE LAND USE AT FAIRCHILD AFB
a) Politics; When Fairchild is eventually closed, the process of
transferring the land and facilities to new owners is likely to be
very political. The land and facilities are suitable for a variety
of purposes, including housing, an industrial park, an airport;
farming or range land.
The Air Force will attempt to sell the land and facilities at fair
market value; the local communities of Spokane, Airway Heights and
Medical Lake, together with the government of Spokane County, will
attempt to acquire properties for free or below market value and
will try to control reuse scenarios through the local zoning
ordinances; there will be political and economic pressure to bring
in businesses and industries to replace the approximately 850
civilian jobs lost from the base's closure; and there will likely
be other competing interests between various local groups.
The experience of current base closures (including those at Pease,
Norton, George, Mather and Chanute Air Force Bases) suggests that
the local community's reuse plan heavily influences the outcome of
a base transfer. Such plans typically are not formulated until
after a base is announced for closure. In the case of Fairchild
AFB, this study did not identify any local committee which has
formulated reuse plans.
The reuse process is likely to involve a number of negotiations
and compromises. The scenarios that are suggested in section (f)
below represent possible outcomes based on current conditions and
facilities, but the final result is impossible to predict
beforehand.
b) Parceling: In addition to the political process described
above, the transfer of Fairchild AFB land and facilities to new
ownership will depend on certain legal issues. One of the key such
issues is the extent to which current law will allow clean parcels
of sites on the National Priority List to be separated from
contaminated parcels and subsequently transferred to new ownership.
For example, if the areas of groundwater contamination at Fairchild
must be fully remediated before any uncontaminated land can be
transferred to new owners, then the Air Force will be forced to
maintain ownership of the entire base well into the next century
until remedial pump-and-treat operations are completed.
A related issue is whether current law will allow the Air Force to
transfer land overlying areas with groundwater contamination after
remedial equipment has been installed and remediation begun (but
before remediation has been completed) . If not, then once again
the Air Force will be forced to maintain ownership of such land
well into the next century, until remedial ground water pump-and-
treat operations are completed.
Fairchild AFB, Page 4
-------
c) Additional complications due to aroundwater. For the purposes
of the baseline risk assessment, four categories of land use are
applicable: Residential, Industrial, Recreational, and
Agricultural. These categories apply to any surface area in or
around the affected site. For subsurface areas, and particularly
for groundwater, the applicability of these separate categories
becomes less clear due to the complications caused by the natural
movements of the underlying aquifer.
For example, in section (f) below it is suggested that the airfield
at Fairchild AFB will continue to be used for aviation, for which
the Industrial classification is applicable. The underlying
groundwater, however, may be more appropriately classified
Agricultural or Residential, since these are likely scenarios for
the surface areas immediately adjacent to the airfield. The extent
to which such distinct classifications can overly the same property
is unclear. In such cases, it may be necessary to assign both
surface and subsurface areas of the property to the same
classification, selecting the classification which corresponds to
the greatest exposure level in this case Residential. However,
no recommendation for resolving this issue is made in this
memorandum. The issue is raised here because it needs to be
resolved before the assignment of future use categories can be
finalized.
d) Comprehensive plan. Fairchild's "Comprehensive Plan" outlines
anticipated future land uses showing changes in the current
residential and industrial patterns. A map detailing these
anticipated new uses is reproduced on page nine and serves as one
of the bases for the future use scenarios suggested in section (d)
below.
e) PEA survey. A survey conducted by the Department of Defense's
Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) offers some insight into
possible future uses of Fairchild land and facilities. Entitled
"25 Years of Civilian Reuse," the survey gives 100 examples of base
closures and their subsequent uses.6 The results of this survey
were also used to formulate the suggested scenarios below.
f) Likely scenarios. Based on Fairchild1s "Comprehensive Plan",
the results of the OEA survey and the characteristics of Fairchild
and the surrounding area, the following future scenarios are
suggested:
See: 25 Years of Civilian Reuse: Summary of Completed Military Base
Economic Adjustment Projects, 1961-1986. Published by the Office of Economic
Adjustment (Department of Defense), Washington, D.C. April-May 1986.
Fairchild AFB, Page 5
-------
O Multiple uses are likely. Fairchild contains runways,
housing, schools, stores, warehouses and other buildings, and
large amounts of vacant land. It is unlikely that all of
these facilities and land will be dedicated toward a single
use in the future. In OEA's survey, 81 percent of the former
bases listed more than one new occupant after transfer to the
civilian sector. At least 66 percent show distinct categories
of occupant and use a municipal airport and an industrial
park, for example, or a community college and a housing
center.
O There is a strong possibility that the runway facilities will
continue to be used for aviation after transfer. In OEA's
survey, of the 54 former Air Force Bases and Naval Air
Stations with runway facilities, 41 (or 76%) listed aviation
as one of their current uses.
O Unless deed restrictions or other institutional controls are
employed, a Residential scenario cannot reasonably be ruled
out for the area containing houses and base barracks. In
OEA's survey, about one quarter (26%) of the former bases
contained residential developments. In no case was a
residential development the only use of a former base.
O A likely use for the remaining buildings on site is some form
of industrial park. (Seventy-four percent of the former bases
surveyed in OEA's study were at least partially devoted to
business or industrial parks). Adding weight to this scenario
is the fact that the economy of the city of Airway Heights is
heavily dependent on the base, and the base also serves as a
major employer for both Spokane and Medical Lake. This means
that, locally, there will be substantial economic and
political pressure to bring in substitute employers should
the base ever be closed.
O For the-peripheral areas of the base, as of yet undeveloped,
the most likely scenario is agricultural use, in keeping with
most of the surrounding area. Residential and industrial
scenarios are less likely in these areas, given the generally
low population density outside of Spokane, the low growth
rate, and the availability of residences and industrial
facilities on other portions of the base.
The diagram on page ten shows, in rough outline, how these
scenarios might be translated to a map of the base. It should be
emphasized that the diagram is merely suggestive and should not be
interpreted as a final determination of future land use
classifications or boundaries.
Future land use will conform to Air Force specifications, as
represented by the map on page 7, until the base is closed and
transferred to the civilian sector. The time until transfer is
Fairchild AFB, Page 6
-------
indeterminate, although it appears unlikely that it would occur
prior to the year 2000. This assessment stems from Fairchild's
status as a "Model Installation" and from the fact the base has
developed specific land use plans and construction activities that
will take it to at least the year 2000, if not beyond. Despite
this assessment, it should be noted that the Base Closure
Commission will be making new recommendations for base closures by
July 1993, and again by July 1995. All military installations will
be subject to review for closure at these times.
Fail-child AFB, Page 7
-------
LOCATION MAP OF FAIRCHILD AIR FORCE BASE
AND SPOKANE, WASHINGTON
Page 8
-------
FUTURE LAND USE
LEGEND
D Airfield
Ops/Maint
Community (Comm)
D Community (SVQ
D Administration
B Industrial
Outdoor Recreation
Open Space
D UEPH (Dorms)
D Housing
Tenant
Medical
(Source: "Comprehensive Plan, Fairchild
Air Force Base: Executive Summary."
Printed by Fairchild Air Force Base,
February, 1991.)
Page 9
-------
FIGURE 3: Possible future uses of property and facilities at Fairchild
Air Force Base (4,500 acres). The scenarios presented here are merely
suggestive and should not be construed as a final evaluation of future
land use classifications or boundaries.
Page 10
-------
MEMORANDUM ON FUTURE LAND USE SCENARIOS
FOR
MOUNTAIN HOME AIR FORCE BASE
Prepared by:
Scott Leland
EPA Region 10
Federal Facility Section
August 21, 1991
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction 1
2. Base Description 1
3. Land Use in the Area Surrounding Mountain Home AFB 1
4. Soil and Climate Information 3
5. Projections for Continued Air Force Ownership
of Mountain Home AFB 4
6. Scenarios for Future Land Use at Mountain Home AFB
a) Politics 4
b) Parceling 5
c) Additional complications due .to groundwater . 6
d) OEA survey 6
e) Likely scenarios 6
Maps 9-10
Appendix A: Land Use Plans Surrounding MHAFB 11
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
This memorandum addresses land use plans for Mountain Home Air
Force Base (MHAFB) and the surrounding area. The scenarios
presented here were developed after reviewing surrounding land
uses, soil survey information, and Mountain Home AFB site plans.
2» BASE DESCRIPTION
MHAFB is located ten miles southwest of the city of Mountain Home
in Elmore County, Idaho (see pages seven and eight for maps). The
base occupies 5,800 acres, or approximately nine square miles. Its
southern boarder lies about 2.5 miles north of the Snake River; the
closest private residence lies less than a mile to the northwest.
Approximately 6,990 military personnel and their dependents live
on the base; 2,250 military personnel live off-base. In addition,
approximately 1000 civilians from Mountain Home and surrounding
towns are employed on the base.
Facilities at MHAFB include 1,521 houses, 26 dormitory quarters
(with a capacity for 1,596 beds), a hospital, stores, recreational
services, a riding stable, and several schools. Facilities to
support the base's primary mission include an airfield, hangars,
numerous warehouses and smaller buildings. A total of 243 non-
residential buildings exist on base.
3. LAND USE IN THE AREA SURROUNDING MOUNTAIN HOME AFB
The following agencies were contacted regarding land use in the
area surrounding MHAFB:
O U.S. Bureau of Land Management
O U.S. Forest Service
O U.S. Department of Agriculture (Soil Conservation Service)
O Idaho Department of Lands
O Idaho Fish and Game
O Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation
O Elmore County Planning and Zoning
O Elmore County Assessor's Office
Appendix A lists the information obtained from these agencies.
None of the agencies contacted has future land management plans
that call for significantly altering current land uses. The area
surrounding Mountain Home AFB is primarily agricultural, although
range land and forested areas make up over 91 percent of Elmore
County land (see Table 1 for a breakdown of land uses within Elmore
County). Much of the land is federally owned and managed by the
Bureau of Land Management and the National Forest Service (see
Table 2 for a breakdown of land ownership in Elmore County).
Mountain Home AFB, Page 1
-------
Urban Land
Agricultural
Range land
Forest
Water
Wetland
Barren Land
Tundra
Perennial Snow
TOTAL
Acrea
12,000
138,700
1,299,300
502,300
18,900
0
0
0
0
1,971,200
Percent
Total
0.6%
7.0%
65.9%
25.5%
1.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Table 1. Breakdown of land uses within Elmore County. (Source:"County Profiles
of Idaho", published by the Idaho Department of Commerce, 1989.)
Acres
Federal Land
BLM 535,653
National Forests 783,321
Other 116,521
State Land
Endowment Land
Fish & Game
Parks & Recreation
Private Land
County Land
Municipal Land
TOTAL
117,186
6,405
513
406,028
0
24
1,965,651
6.0%
0.3%
0.0%
20.7%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Table 2. Breakdown of land ownership in Elmore'County. (Source: "County Profiles
of Idaho", published by the Idaho Department of. Commerce, 1989.)
The population of the area surrounding MHAFB is sparse. Elmore
County has approximately 22,100 people (1987 estimate), or about
7.2 people per square mile. The growth rate is also modest, with
Mountain Home AFB, Page 2
-------
the population of the county having increased only 2.4 percent in
eight years (from 21,565 in 1980 to 22,100 in 1988). Table 3 lists
the population of the towns surrounding MHAFB and gives the
approximate number of people from each town that work on the base.
It also shows that the economies of most of the surrounding towns
are based on agriculture and ranching.
o City of Mountain Home:
- Population 8,900
- Number of residents employed at MHAFB =1,000
- Located 10 miles southwest of MHAFB
- Economy is service and agriculturally oriented
o Grandview
- Population 350
- Number of residents employed at MHAFB 0
- Located 15 miles southwest of MHAFB, across the Snake River
- Economy is farming oriented
o Hammet
- Population 500
- Number of residents employed at MHAFB 2
- Located southeast of MHAFB
- Economy is farming and ranching oriented
o Glenns Ferry
- Population 1,500
- Number of residents employed at MHAFB 75
- Located 25 miles southeast of MHAFB
- Economy is based on agriculture and an electronics plant
(which is a major employer)
o Bruneau
- Population 600
- Number of residents employed at MHAFB 0
- Located 10 miles south of MHAFB
- Economy is ranching oriented
Table 3. Descriptive data on communities surrounding Mountain Home Air Force
Base. (Source: "Installation Restoration Program Community Relations Plan,
Mountain Home AFB, Idaho." Prepared by Woodward-Clyde, Omaha, NE. April 1991.
Page 4.)
4. SOIL AND CLIMATE INFORMATION
A soil survey of the Mountain Home AFB area was performed by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Soil Conservation Service. This
survey indicates generally poor suitability for agriculture without
irrigation due to low precipitation (7-9 inches per year). Even
with irrigation, agricultural suitability is rated only fair in
four of the seven areas surveyed. All areas are susceptible to
Mountain Home AFB, Page 3
-------
erosion problems, and three of the seven areas are limited due to
shallow topsoil.
One factor which may limit future development of the area is the
availability of groundwater. The area is currently in its fifth
year of drought, and the water table is falling. This problem was
mentioned by several of the agencies contacted as being a limiting
factor in the future growth of the area.
5. PROJECTIONS FOR CONTINUED AIR FORCE OWNERSHIP OF MHAFB
MHAFB was one of the installations which the 1991 Base Closure
Commission added to the Pentagon's recommended closure list in
order to further investigate closure options. By July 1991,
however, the Commission announced that it was not recommending
MHAFB for closure. Nevertheless, the Commission will be making
new closure recommendations by July 1993, and again by July 1995.
All military installations are subject to review for closure at
those times.
The Air Force has announced specific plans for Mountain Home AFB
only as far as 1992. There are indicators which suggest, however,
that military hopes to maintain control significantly into the
future:
O Per an Air Force public announcement: "Mountain Home AFB will
host a new composite wing formed of different types of aircraft.
However, actual number and mix of aircraft and personnel
requirements, have not yet been defined. The forces will begin
arriving in 1992."1
O There is a proposal from the Air Force, supported by the
Governor's office, to open up a new 150,000 acre training
facility for MHAFB in an area currently owned by the Bureau of
Land Management, located approximately 50 miles SE of Mountain
Home city. The Environmental Impact Study for this proposal is
currently scheduled to be undertaken in 1992. Estimates from
BLM contacts indicate that the whole process could take several
years before being approved. This suggests that the Air Force
may have plans for MHAFB extending well beyond 1992.
6. SCENARIOS FOR FUTURE LAND USE AT MHAFB
a) Politics: When MHAFB is eventually closed, the process of
transferring the land and facilities to new owners is likely to be
very political. The land and facilities are suitable for a variety
United States Air Force. Public Announcement Fact Sheets (re. Base
Closures and Realignments). Washington, D.C. 1991. Page 11.
Mountain Home AFB, Page
-------
of purposes, including housing, industrial parks, a municipal
airport, rangeland and farming (with adequate irrigation).
The Air Force will attempt to sell the land and facilities at fair
market value; the local community of Mountain Home, together with
the government of Elmore County, will attempt to acquire properties
for free or below market value and will try to control reuse
scenarios through the local zoning ordinances; there will be
political and economic pressure to bring in businesses and
industries to replace the 1000 civilian jobs lost from the base's
closure; and there will likely be other competing interests between
various special interest groups.
The.experience of current base closures (including those at Pease,
Norton, George, Mather and Chanute Air Force' Bases) suggests that
the local community's reuse plan heavily influences the outcome of
a base transfer. Such plans typically are not formulated until
after a base is announced for closure. In the case of Mountain
Home AFB, local communities have not developed reuse plans,
although numerous residents were active in lobbying to keep the
base open during the period in which it was being considered for
closure.
The reuse process is likely to involve a number of negotiations
and compromises. The scenarios that are suggested in section (e)
below represent possible outcomes based on current conditions and
facilities, but the final result is impossible to predict
beforehand.
b) Parceling; In addition to the political process described
above, the transfer of MHAFB land and facilities to new ownership
will depend on certain legal issues. One of the key such issues
is the extent to which current law will allow clean parcels of
sites on the National Priority List to be separated from
contaminated parcels and subsequently transferred to new ownership.
For example, if the areas of groundwater contamination at MHAFB
must be fully remediated before any uncontaminated land can be
transferred to new owners, then the Air Force will be forced to
maintain ownership of the entire base well into the next century
until remedial pump-and-treat operations are completed.
A related issue is whether current law will allow the Air Force to
transfer land overlying areas with groundwater contamination after
remedial equipment has been installed and remediation begun (but
before remediation has been completed). If not, then once again
the Air Force will be forced to maintain ownership of such land
well into the next century, until remedial ground water pump-and-
treat operations are completed.
c) Additional complications due to groundwater. For the purposes
of the baseline risk assessment, four categories of land use are
applicable: Residential, Industrial, Recreational, and
Mountain Home AFB. Page 5
-------
Agricultural. These categories apply to any surface area in or
around the affected site. For subsurface areas, and particularly
for groundwater, the applicability of these separate categories
becomes less clear due to the complications caused by the natural
movements of the underlying aquifer.
For example, in section (e) below it is suggested that the airfield
at MHAFB will continue to be used for aviation, for which the
Industrial classification is applicable. The underlying
groundwater, however, may be more appropriately classified
Residential, since this is a likely scenario for some of the
surface areas within 1.5 miles of the airfield. The extent to
which such distinct classifications can overly the same property
is unclear. In such cases, it may be necessary to assign both
surface and subsurface areas of the property to the same
classification, selecting the classification which corresponds to
the greatest exposure level in this case Residential. However,
no recommendation for resolving this issue is made in this
memorandum. The issue is raised here because it needs to be
resolved before the assignment of future use categories can be
finalized.
d) PEA survey. A survey conducted by the Department of Defense's
Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) offers some insight into
possible future uses of Mountain Home AFB land and facilities.
Entitled "25 Years of Civilian Reuse," the survey gives 100
examples of base closures and their subsequent uses.2 The results
of this survey were used to help formulate the scenarios suggested
below.
e) Likely scenarios. Based on the results of the OEA survey and
the characteristics of MHAFB and the surrounding area, the
following future scenarios are suggested:
O Multiple uses are likely. MHAFB contains runways, housing,
schools, stores, warehouses and other buildings, and large
amounts of vacant land. It is unlikely that all of these
facilities and land will be dedicated toward a single use in the
future. In OEA's survey, 81 percent of the former bases listed
more than one new occupant after transfer to the civilian sector.
At least 66 percent show distinct categories of occupant and use
a municipal airport and an industrial park, for example, or
a community college and a housing center.
O There is a strong possibility that the runway facilities will
continue to be used for aviation after transfer. In OEA's
survey, of the 54 former Air Force Bases and Naval Air Stations
See: 25 Years of Civilian Reuse: Summary of Completed Military Base
Economic Adjustment Projects, 1961-1986, Published by the Office of Economic
Adjustment (Department of Defense), Washington, D.C. April-May 1986.
Mountain Home AFB, Page 6
-------
with runway facilities, 41 (or 76%) listed aviation as one of
their current uses.
O Unless deed restrictions or other institutional controls are
employed, a Residential scenario cannot reasonably be ruled out
for the areas containing houses and base barracks. In OEA's
survey, about one quarter (26%) of the former bases contained
residential developments. In no case was a residential
development the only use of a former base.
O A likely use for the remaining buildings on site is some form of
industrial park. (Seventy-four percent of the former bases
surveyed in OEA's study were at least partially devoted to
business or industrial parks). Adding weight to this scenario
is the fact that the economy of the city of Mountain Home is
heavily dependent on the base, with approximately 1000 civilian
residents being employed there. This means that, locally, there
will be substantial economic and political pressure to bring in
substitute employers should the base ever be closed.
O For the peripheral areas of the base, as of yet undeveloped,
likely scenarios are:
- agricultural, if irrigation is provided, or
- range land, similar to much of the surrounding land area.
Residential and industrial scenarios are less likely in these
areas, given the low population density, low growth rate, and
the availability of residences and facilities on other portions
of the base.
The diagram on page ten shows, in rough outline, how these
scenarios might be translated to a map of the base. It should be
emphasized that the diagram is merely suggestive and should not be
interpreted as a final evaluation of future land use
classifications or boundaries.
The likely time until transfer to the civilian sector is
indeterminate. This uncertainty is highlighted by the fact that
the base's mission has changed six times since being opened in
1943. including two periods of deactivation (1945-49 and 1950-
51) . MHAFB was also one of the bases which the 1991 Base Closure
Commission considered recommending for closure, so it may again be
singled out for consideration in the future. The Commission will
make new recommendations by July 1, 1993, and again by July 1,
1995.
T'he following table summarizes the base's history:
DATES COMMAND
1943-1945 Army Air Corps
1945-1949 Deactivated
1949-1950 Strategic Air Command
1950-1951 Deactivated
DATES COMMAND
1951-1953 Military Air Transport
1953-1965 Strategic Air Command
1966-Present . . . Tactical Air Command
Mountain Home AFB, Page 7
-------
The Air Force has committed activities for a new composite wing at
MHAFB into at least 1992. The proposal to open up a new training
grounds area nearby suggests that the Air Force hopes to keep the
base open for several more years, although more detailed plans have
yet to be announced.
Mountain Home AFB, Page 8
-------
100
[Mountain Home AFB|
Mountain Home Air Force Base. Site 8
Elmort County, Idaho
VICINITY MAP
T-1001
RESOURCES CONSERVATION CO.
SHANNON ft WILSON. INC.
FIG. 1
FIGURE 1: Location of Mountain Home AFB.
Page 9
-------
RANGE LAND or
AGRICULTURAL
RESIDENTIAL
c.
T4S
T5S
Mountain Home''..'
Boundary \
INDUSTRIAL
FIGURE 2: Possible future uses of property and facilities at Mountain
Home Air Force Base (5,800 acres). The scenarios presented here are
merely suggestive and should not be construed as a final evaluation of
future land use classifications or boundaries.
Page 10
-------
APPENDIX A: LAND USE PLANS SURROUNDING MOUNTAIN HOME APB
o U.S. Bureau of Land Management:
The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has scattered ownership
of the land surrounding MHAFB. Grazing is the primary use of the
land, followed by wildlife habitat. There is also some
recreational use, primarily on nearby Snake River. The BLM
regional office is scheduled to do a "Resource Management Plan"
in 1995, which will address future land uses. (Contact: Dennis
Hoyem/ BLM Area Manager for Mountain Home/ 3948 Development Ave./
Boise, ID 83705. FTS 327-3300.)
O U.S. Forest Service:
The Forest Service owns no land adjacent to MHAFB. The nearest
Forest Service land lies about 40 miles north of the city of
Mountain Home. Moreover, MHAFB lies outside of the proclaimed
boundary of potential U.S. Forest Service property. The Forest
Service therefore has no legislative authority to bid for MHAFB
property, should it ever become available. (Contact: Larry
Tripp, Mountain Home Ranger Station (208) 587-7961.)
O U.S. Department of Agriculture (Soil Conservation Service):
USDA's involvement with the area has been primarily in
undertaking a soil survey. The land in and around MHAFB is
generally unsuitable for agriculture without irrigation. Erosion
and shallow soil depth are other limiting problems. (Contact:
Skip Venton (208) 587-3616)
O Idaho Department of Lands:
Large portions of land surrounding MHAFB belong to the Snake
River Birds of Prey National Conservation Area. No changes in
current management practices are foreseen in the near future.
(Contact: Don McNearie, Boise office, (208) 334-0253.)
O Idaho Fish and Game:
Fish and Game has no land adjacent to MHAFB. The nearest
property is a reservoir lying approximately 4 miles south along
the Snake River. (Contact: Dale Vonsteem, Garden City district
office: (208) 327-7025.)
O Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation:
Has no land that borders MHAFB. Bruneau State Park is the
closest Parks and Recreation land. (Phone: (208) 887-4863)
O Elmore County Planning and Zoning:
Elmore County maintains zoning ordinances which protect the land
area immediately surrounding MHAFB from experiencing significant
growth. The County expects to maintain these ordinances
indefinitely, as long as the Air Force Base is operational. The
Planning and Zoning office has no other long range management
plans for the area.
Mountain Home AFB, Page 11
-------
(Contact: Larry Lasuen, Director. 190 South 4th East/ Courthouse
Annex/ Mountain Home, ID 83647. (208) 587-2142)
O Elmore County Assessor's Office:
The Assessor commented that residential growth in the area is
very slow, with very few new residential developments. The
approximate land values in the area are $500 per acre for
irrigated land (with pumps installed); $60-70 per acre for dry
grazing land; and $1,300-2,000 per acre for residential use, for
lots under five acres. (Contact: Ken Pierce, Assessor. (208)
587-2126)
Mountain Home AFB, Page 12
-------
MEMORANDUM ON FUTURE LAND USE SCENARIOS
FOR
U.S. ARMY DEPOT ACTIVITY UMATILLA
Prepared by:
Scott Leland
EPA Region 10
Federal Facility Section
August 26, 1991
TABLE OF CONTENTS
3. Land Use in the Area Surrounding Umatilla Army Depot ...
4. Projections for Continued Army Ownership
of the Umatilla Depot
5. Scenarios for Future Land Use at Umatilla Army Depot
.... 1
.... 1
.... 2
.... 4
. . . . 5
.... 5
.... 6
.... 6
. . . 8-9
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
f
This memorandum addresses future land use plans for the U.S. Army
Depot Activity Umatilla (UMDA) and the surrounding area. The
scenarios presented here were developed after reviewing
surrounding land uses and UMDA site plans.
2. SITE DESCRIPTION
The Umatilla Army Depot occupies 19,727 acres and is located 10
miles west of Hermiston, in Umatilla and Morrow counties, Oregon
(see map on page 8).
Since 1941, Umatilla has performed the mission of reserve storage
and demilitarization of conventional and chemical munitions. In
December 1988, however, UMDA was recommended for realignment and
eventual closure by the 1988 Base Closure Commission. According
to the Commission's report:
"The military value of the installation was lower than
other installations in the same category, primarily
because it is a small single-mission installation. The
facilities at Umatilla also require upgrading...
Umatilla's mission can be managed more effectively in
another location..."1
Facilities at UMDA, as of November 1987, consisted of 346
buildings; 1,001 ammunition igloos; approximately one million
feet of warehouse space; 24 family housing units; a 13-unit
bachelor-enlisted quarters; and an apartment for visiting
personnel. Additionally, the installation has 194 miles of paved
roads, 51 miles of railroad track, and a 3,000-foot airstrip.
UMDA has several noteworthy characteristics which will impact
future land'uses:
O The 1001 ammunition igloos are large, semi-buried fortified
structures measuring approximately 100 feet long by 15 feet
high; the walls are several feet thick and designed to
withstand the force of high explosives at close range.
These igloos were constructed on-site; it is likely that
they will remain on-site after UMDA is eventually closed
down, as the cost of removal is likely to be prohibitive.
O Approximately 1,100 acres of the northwest portion of UMDA
have been used as an "Ammunition Destruction Activity (ADA)"
Base Realignments and Closures: Report of the Defense Secretary's
Commission, December 1988. Published by the Department of Defense, December
1988.
*** August 26, 1991 -- DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE *** Umatilla, Page 1
-------
area. The ADA contains numerous burning pits and trenches
where bulk explosives were open burned without detonation or
where ordnance was buried and detonated. A portion of the
buried ordnance may have never detonated, however, and may
be buried up to 15 feet below the surface. The task of
screening for unexploded ordnance over 1,100 acres to a
depth of 15 feet to uncover and safely dispose of this *
ordnance would be formidable. The costs for the Department
of Defense to clear this area to the point at which it may
be considered safe for unrestricted use, such as residential
or industrial, would be prohibitive.
The chemical munitions currently stored at UMDA are
scheduled to be destroyed through a program known as
chemical demilitarization. If the four incinerators
required for this program are constructed on-site at UMDA,
as appears likely, then future scenarios could include their
continued use as hazardous waste incinerators after the
eventual closure of UMDA.
As of January 1988, the work force at Umatilla consisted of three
military personnel and 250 civilians. However, the 1988 Base
Closure Commission projected that, after realignment, the number
of civilian employees will decrease.
"Approximately 75 civilians will remain at Umatilla to
perform environmental monitoring of ammunition-storage
igloos, munitions handling, munitions transport quality
control activities, and security escort duties.
Additionally, personnel will be needed to support the
increased depot workload for such activities as storage
site monitoring, laundry operations, and vehicle and
road maintenance."
The 1988 Base Closure Commission predicted that realignment of
Umatilla will have minimal impact on local employment.
Realignment is currently scheduled to be completed by January
1994. It should be noted that the incinerators required for the
chemical demilitarization mission are likely to employ 300 to 400
workers.
3. LAND USE IN THE AREA SURROUNDING UMDA
Located two miles south of the Columbia River, UMDA is within the
Umatilla Lowlands and is surrounded primarily by irrigated
agricultural land. Most of the surrounding land is privately
owned, although the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) owns
ibid, page 66.
*** August 26, 1991 -- DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE *** Umatilla, Page 2
-------
scattered, non-contiguous small tracts of land in all directions,
within one or more miles of the installation's boundaries.3 In
addition, the Umatilla National Wildlife Refuge lies about three
miles west by northwest of UMDA. The Bureau of Reclamation also
owns some land about two miles east by northeast of the site.
Communities located near UMDA include Boardman (population
1,420; 12 miles to the west), Irriaon (population 800; near the
northwestern perimeter); Umatilla (population 3,010; 8 miles to
the northeast), and Hermiston (the area's most populated city at
10,075 residents, located 10 miles to the northeast).
Other regional cities include Pendleton, the Umatilla County
seat, 35 miles to the southeast, and the cities of Richland,
Pasco, and Kennewick, which comprise the Tri-Cities area of
Washington and are located 35 miles to the northeast.
Additional land use and historical information is provided in a
report prepared for the Army (the "USATHAMA" report):
"Since its creation in 1941, UMDA has been recognized
as a major element of the bi-county regional economy.
It was not until the development of the circular
irrigation method that the semiarid region became
primarily an agricultural center. Hermiston city and
Chamber of Commerce officials estimate the area's
population doubled between 1970 and 1980 as a direct
result of desert land being revitalized into farm
production. Regional crops include potatoes, alfalfa,
corn, wheat, onions, asparagus, apples, grapes, and
regionally renowned Hermiston watermelons. Beef cattle
and pork production also exist, with one of the
nation's largest hog farms located on the perimeter of
the installation.
"Major Hermiston area employers in 1987 were as
follows: Lamb-Weston (potato processing; 1,600
employees); Simplot (potato processing; 1,050
employees); Union-Pacific (362 employees); Hermiston
Ttost of these tracts are under 200 acres. They are used primarily for
grazing or agriculture (the land is either leased, or made available through
permits). A few tracts are material sites (gravel pits); some of the land
lies unused. Limited recreation may occur on some of these lands, including
hunting and dirt biking. The 1989 Baker Resource Management Plan does not
call for any significant change in current land uses. (Contact: Steve
Davidson, BLM Baker Resource Area, (503) 523-6391.)
All population figures quoted in this memorandum are from: 1991-1992
Oregon Blue Book. Compiled and published by Phil Keisling, Secretary of
State.
*** August 26, 1991 -- DRAFT, 00 NOT CITE OR QUOTE *** Umatilla, Page 3
-------
School District (300 employees); and UMDA (250
employees).
"In Pendleton, the Umatilla County seat, located 28
miles east of UMDA, wool processing at Pendleton Mills
and the Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution
reinforce the agricultural economy."6
Characteristics which may affect UMDA's potential as a future
business or industrial park are also highlighted in the USATHAMA
report:
"UMDA has immediate access to water, land, and air
transportation for shipping and receiving. The
Columbia river is 2 miles north from the Activity's
boundary, and the port of Umatilla provides direct
water transportation to Portland and beyond to the
Pacific Rim, as well as access to the 465-mile-long
Columbia/Snake River System.
"U.S. Interstate 84 parallels the southern boundary of
UMDA and provides direct land linkage with Portland,
175 miles west, and Boise, Idaho, 265 miles southeast.
Interstate 82 parallels the eastern boundary of UMDA
and intersects Interstate 84 near the southeastern
corner of the installation."7
4. PROJECTIONS FOR CONTINUED ARMY OWNERSHIP OF UMDA
UMDA opened October 14, 1941 and has operated continuously ever
since. However, the mission performed by UMDA has been realigned
to Hawthorne Army Ammunition Plant in Nevada, in accordance with
the recommendations of the 1988 Base Closure Commission. UMDA is
in the process of completing its mission, and realignment is
scheduled to be completed by January 1994. According to the 1988
Base Closure Commission's report:
"The Commission was prevented from closing Umatilla
because of the ongoing chemical demilitarization (CHEM
DEMIL) mission. CHEM DEMIL prevented closure because
This paragraph is not a direct quote, but rather a summary of a chart
provided in the USATHAMA report.
T/.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency: Public Involvement and
Response Plan for Umatilla Army Depot Activity. Prepared by William K. Boe,
Environmental Science and Engineering, Inc., P.O. Box 1703, Gainesville, FL
32602. October 1988. Prepared for: U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials
Agency, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010. Pages 2-1 and 2-2.
7ibid, page 1-2.
*** August 26, 1991 -- DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE *** Umatilla, Page 4
-------
the Army cannot begin on-site destruction of chemical
munitions until 1994 with an expected completion date
of 1996, which falls outside of the Commission's
allowed time frame for completing closures.
"The installation will be realigned to the maximum
extent possible in order to facilitate closure as soon
as the CHEM DEMIL mission is complete."8
Construction has not yet begun on the four incinerators which
will be used to complete the CHEM DEMIL mission, although it is
likely that these incinerators will be sited near the K-Block of
ammunition igloos (see map, page nine). Despite delays in the
siting of the incinerators, it appears likely that the CHEM DEMIL
mission will be completed before the end of the decade. If so,
closure of UMDA could be completed near the year 2000. The Base
Closure Commission will make new closure recommendations to the
President by July 1993, and again by July 1995.
5. SCENARIOS FOR FUTURE LAND USE AT UMDA
a) Parceling: Once closed, the transfer of UMDA land and
facilities to new ownership will depend on a variety of issues.
One of the key issues is the extent to which current law will
allow clean parcels of sites on the National Priority List to be
separated from contaminated parcels and subsequently transferred
to new ownership. For example, if the Ammunition Destruction
Activity area of UMDA must be fully remediated before any
uncontaminated land can be transferred to new owners, then the
Army will be forced to maintain ownership of all of UMDA
indefinitely, as it is unlikely that this area will be remediated
in the foreseeable future.
A related issue is whether current law will allow the Army to
transfer land overlying areas with groundwater contamination
after remedial equipment has been installed and remediation begun
(but before remediation has been completed). If not, then the
Army will be forced to maintain ownership of such land well into
the next century, while ground water pump-and-treat operations
are on-going.
b) Additional complications due to aroundwater. For the purposes
of the baseline risk assessment, four categories of land use are
applicable: Residential, Industrial, Recreational, and
Agricultural. These categories apply to any surface area in or
around the affected site. For subsurface areas, and particularly
Base Realignments and Closures: Report of the Defense Secretary's
Commission, December 1988. Published by the Department of Defense, December
1988. Page 66.
*** August 26, 1991 -- DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE *** Umatilla, Page 5
-------
for groundwater, the applicability of these separate categories
becomes less clear due to the complications caused by the natural
movements of the underlying aquifer.
For example, in section [d] below it is suggested that the runway
at Umatilla may continue to be used for aviation, for which the
Industrial classification is applicable. The underlying
groundwater, however, may be more appropriately classified
Agricultural, since this is a likely scenario for the surface
areas adjacent to the airfield. The extent to which such
distinct classifications can overly the same property is unclear.
In such cases, it may be necessary to assign both surface and
subsurface areas of the property to the same classification,
selecting the classification which corresponds to the greatest
exposure level in this case Agricultural. However, no
recommendation for resolving this issue is made in this
memorandum. The issue is raised here because it needs to be
resolved before the assignment of future use categories can be
finalized.
c) PEA survey. A survey conducted by the Department of Defense's
Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) offers some insight into
possible future uses of UMDA land and facilities. Entitled "25
Years of Civilian Reuse," the survey gives 100 examples of base
closures and their subsequent uses. The results of this survey
are used to help formulate the scenarios suggested below.
d) Likely scenarios. Based on the results of the OEA survey and
the characteristics of Umatilla and the surrounding area, the
following future scenarios are suggested:
O Multiple uses are likely. Umatilla contains housing,
warehouses and other structures, a small runway, plus large
amounts of vacant land. It is unlikely that this entire
area will be dedicated toward a single use in the future.
In OEA"'s survey, 81 percent of the former bases listed more
than one new occupant after transfer to the civilian sector.
At least 66 percent show distinct categories of occupant and
use a municipal airport and an industrial park, for
example, or a community college and a housing center.
O There is a reasonable possibility that the runway, though
small and with few supporting structures, will continue to
be used for aviation after transfer. In OEA's survey, of
the 54 former Air Force Depots and Naval Air Stations with
runway facilities, 41 (or 76%) listed aviation as one of
their current uses.
O
See: 25 Years of Civilian Reuses Summary of Completed Military Base
Economic Adjustment Projects, 1961-1986. Published by the Office of Economic
Adjustment (Department of Defense), Washington, D.C. April-May 1986.
*** August 26, 1991 -- DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE *** Umatilla, Page 6
-------
O Unless deed restrictions or other institutional controls are
employed, a Residential scenario cannot reasonably be ruled
out for the land in the administration area containing
housing facilities. In OEA's survey, about one quarter
(26%) of the former depots contained residential
developments. In no case was a residential development the
only use of a former depot.
O A likely use for the remaining buildings in the
administration area is some form of industrial park.
(Seventy-four percent of the former depots surveyed in OEA's
study were at least partially devoted to business or
industrial parks).
O The 1,100 acre Ammunition Destruction Activity (ADA) area in
the northwest portion of the installation is likely to
require some sort of institutional control to restrict
future use. The costs to the Department of Defense to
remediate this area for unrestricted land use are
prohibitive. A possible future use that has been suggested
is for the area to be used by the Oregon National Guard for
tank training. (In the unlikely event that the area is
fully remediated, a likely scenario would be for the land to
be used for farming.)
O South of the ADA, toward the southwestern portion of the
depot and easily accessible to Interstate 84, a series of
warehouses make a Residential or light industrial scenario
possible.
O In the chemical munitions storage area, in and around K-
Block, a potential scenario is for the continued use of the
area for hazardous waste storage. This scenario will become
more likely if the incinerators necessary to complete the
CHEM DEMIL mission are constructed in this area, as
expected.
O In the remaining storage areas, Blocks A through J, the
presence of the igloos makes a variety of uses possible.
The igloos would not prohibit farming in these areas,
although they make some form of warehousing or light
industrial use more likely.
O For the peripheral areas of the depot, as of yet
undeveloped, the most likely scenario is agricultural use,
in keeping with most of the surrounding area.
The diagram on page 9 shows, in rough outline, how these
scenarios might be translated to a map of UMDA. It should be
emphasized that the diagram is merely suggestive and should not
be interpreted as a final evaluation of future land use
classifications or boundaries.
*** August 26, 1991 -- DRAFT, DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE *** Umatilla. Page 7
-------
USATHAUA mtP-(MMI7LLA f«»7E
WASHINGTON
UMATILLA
DEPOT
ACTIVITY
O EMIGRANT IT?
_ nilTTCC IV \
OREGON
4 Ml
2 4 KILOMETERS
Figure A-1
LOCATION OF UMATILLA DEPOT ACTIVITY,
UMATILLA, OREGON
SOURCE: ESE, 1987.
Prepared for:
U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous
Materials Agency
Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland
Page 8
-------
USATHAMA MRPUUATtUA HOTS
05
-------
MEMORANDUM ON FUTURE LAND USE SCENARIOS
FOR
WHIDBEY ISLAND NAVAL AIR STATION
Prepared by:
Scott Leland
EPA Region 10
Federal Facility Section
August 23, 1991
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Map
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ......... .....
Base Description ...............
Land Use in the Area Surrounding NAS Whidbey Island . . . .
Projections for Continued Air Force Ownership
of NAS Whidbey Island
Scenarios for Future Land Use at NAS Whidbey Island
a) Politics
b) Parceling ..................
c) Additional Complications Due to Groundwater
e) Likely Scenarios ........
.... 1
.... 1
.... 2
.... 4
.... 5
. . . . 5
.... 6
.... 6
.... 6
. . . 9-13
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
This memorandum addresses future land use plans for Whidbey Island
Naval Air Station (NAS Whidbey Island) and the surrounding area.
The scenarios presented here were developed after reviewing
surrounding land uses and NAS Whidbey Island site plans.
2. BASE DESCRIPTION
NAS Whidbey Island is located 80 miles north of Seattle on Whidbey
Island, in Island County (see Figure 1, page 9). It is a complex
of approximately 7,160 acres (over 11 square miles) and is composed
of two bases that are five miles apart: Ault Field and the Seaplane
Base.
Ault Field contains 4,360 acres, or approximately seven square
miles. Approximately 899 acres are used for agriculture (see
Figure 2, page 10); 235 acres are under forest management; 2,700
acres are unimproved grasslands; 45 acres are lawns; and
approximately 725 acres are covered by pavement or buildings.1
Ault Field contains most of the Station's military activities,
including the airfield, hangars, maintenance and administrative
buildings, as well as barracks, a small residential area and a
hospital.
The Seaplane Base contains 2,800 acres, or approximately 4.3 square
miles. Approximately 282 acres are used for agriculture; 1,092
acres are under forest management; 550 acres are leased to the
State Department of Wildlife; 882 acres are unimproved grasslands;
373 acres are improved grasslands; 206 acres are lawns; and about
484 acres are covered by buildings on pavement. Much of the
acreage is covered by dual-use leases.2 The Seaplane Base contains
support activities for the station, including most of the 1,445
family housing units, the Family Service Center, Commissary,
Exchange, administrative buildings and a marina.
The combined areas of Ault Field and the Seaplane Base have over
2.04 million square feet of buildings and structures.
Approximately 8,400 military personnel are assigned to NAS Whidbey
Island, making it the largest Naval installation in the Northwest.
Approximately 1,750 civilians work at the Station.
NAS Whidbey Island Master Plan, 1988. Prepared by the firms of Reid,
Middleton & Associates, Inc. and Dean Wolf - Environmental Planning/Design.
Prepared for Western Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, San
Bruno, CA 94066. Page 65.
ibid, page 68.
ibid, page 1.
NAS Whidbey Island, Page 1
-------
Prior to the construction and establishment of NAS Whidbey Island
in 1942, the area now occupied by Ault Field contained cropland,
pasture countryside and wooded areas. There were no residential,
commercial or industrial developments. The area now occupied by
the Seaplane Base was predominantly farmland, interspersed with
wooded areas and a few isolated structures.
As of 1990, the Air Station was valued at over $836 million.4
Averaged out over its entire 7,122 acres, this equals over $117,000
per acre and demonstrates the extremely high value placed on the
land and facilities. If and when the Air Station does close down,
the Navy will attempt to sell off as much of this land as possible
in order to recoup its approximate market value. This may have the
effect of limiting the potential of the land for future
agricultural use, as it may be considered "too valuable" for
farming.
3. LAND USE IN THE AREA SURROUNDING NAS WHIDBEY ISLAND
The area surrounding the Air Station is made up of the city of Oak
Harbor, private businesses, residences, farmland and woodland.
Most of the land is privately owned, although the State does own
and operate Deception Pass State Park, which lies less than two
miles north of Ault Field. The nearest private residences lie
immediately adjacent to the western boundary of the Seaplane Base,
in the city of Oak Harbor.
Whidbey Island; "Whidbey Island is one of the larger islands in
the northern end of Puget Sound and serves as a gateway to the San
Juan Islands. It is located just east of the Straits of Juan de
Fuca. Whidbey Island is a narrow island 40 miles long. The island
is an increasingly popular tourist location serving thousands of
campers, boaters, and others seeking recreation during the summer
months. Washington State's most heavily used state park
Deception Pass State Park and popular Cranberry Lake, are
located on the northern end of the island, roughly 10 miles north
of the city of Oak Harbor and about two miles from the northern
point of Ault Field. The island's natural beauty encompasses miles
of sand and gravel beaches, acres of forests and rolling hills, and
many quaint farms. Beach combing, fishing, crabbing, boating, and
clamming are popular island activities. Although aquaculture
growth is a controversial issue in the community, mussels grown
''Whidbey Island Naval Air Station 1990. Published by MARCOA Publishing
Inc., San Diego, CA. 1990. Page 3.
NAS Whidbey Island, Page 2
-------
commercially in Whidbey Island's Penn Cove are becoming
increasingly popular at Washington restaurants."5
The job market on the Island is characterized by NAS Whidbey Island
documents as "very tight,"6 with the Air Station being the major
employer. The economy of northern Whidbey Island is heavily
dependent on the Air Station.
Oak Harbor: "The city of Oak Harbor is the community nearest to
NAS Whidbey's Ault Field and the Seaplane Base. Approximately
eight square miles in size, Oak Harbor is located just south of
Ault Field and west of the Seaplane Base on the northern end of
Whidbey Island. Incorporated in 1915, Oak Harbor is the island's
largest population center with a population of 15,540.7 The city's
population has grown steadily since 1940 when the population was
about 400 to the present day population. Population projections
estimate an increase in population to 28,400 by the year 2000
(reference: City of Oak Harbor Comprehensive Plan, October 6,
1987).... Economic dependence on the Navy has been a way of life
for Oak Harbor since the 1940s. Many businesses, such as hotels,
restaurants, and retail shops which serve tourists and NAS
personnel, thrive along the busy state highway (Highway 20) that
bisects the town. In more recent years, tourism has provided an
increasing source of revenue to Oak Harbor."8
Coupeville: "The town of Coupeville lies about 15 minutes south
of Oak Harbor just off of State Highway 20. Coupeville was founded
in 1852 by Thomas Coupe, a sea captain with the distinction of
being the only man to sail a full-rigged ship through Deception
Pass. Coupeville is one of the oldest towns in the state. Within
the last few years, Coupeville has become a haven for tourists with
its brightly painted Victorian houses and antique shops along the
waterfront. Coupeville is the Island County government seat.
Coupeville residents, among other Whidbey Islanders, have
recognized the impacts of tourism and business growth on their
communities in recent years. In response to some of the growth the
island has experienced, citizens have formed the Citizen's Ground
Water Management Advisory Committee which advises the county on
Remedial Investigation Project Plans: Community Relations Plan, for
Naval Air Station Whidbey Island Oak Harbor, Washington. Submitted by:
HAZWRAP Support contractor Office, Oak Ridge, TN 37831. Revision 1, August
1989. Page 17.
Whidbey Island Naval Air Station 1990. Published by MARCOA Publishing
Inc., San Diego, CA. 1990. Page 5.
Updated estimate. Source: 1990 Economic and Demographic Almanac of
Washington Counties and Cities. By James R. Fox and Christopher Hodgkin.
Published by The Information Press. Page 116.
D
Community Relations Plan, page 17. (See footnote 5 for full citation.)
NAS Uhidbey Island, Page 3
-------
ground water issues involving both Whidbey Island and Camano
Island."9
The growth rate for the area is among the fastest in the state of
Washington, with the population of the county having increased
about 34 percent in ten years (from 44,048 in 1980 to 59,200 in
1990). Growth rates for individual cities are given below:
City
Oak Harbor
Coupeville
Langely
Growth Rate
27% in ten years
3.4% in ten years
22% in ten years
Population/Years
12,271 (1980) to 15,540 (1990)
1,006 (1980) to 1,350 (1990)
654 (1980) to 800 (1990)
With respect to land ownership, of Island County's 135,680 acres,
private ownership accounts for over 85 percent (116,588 acres).
The Federal government owns 6.1 percent (8,287 acres); State
government owns 5.0 percent (6,719 acres); and County government
owns 3.0 percent (4,086 acres).10
4. PROJECTIONS FOR CONTINUED NAVY OWNERSHIP OF NAS WHIDBEY ISLAND
NAS Whidbey Island was commissioned on September 21, 1942 and has
operated continuously ever since. The Air Station will celebrate
its 50th anniversary next year.
The future of the base is uncertain. The Air Station is one of 31
military bases that the Pentagon recommended for closure to the
1991 Base Closure Commission. The Commission agreed that 25 of the
bases should be closed, but it rejected the closure of NAS Whidbey
Island. For the time being, therefore, the Air Station will remain
open. However, the Commission will make new closure
recommendations by July 1993 and again by July 1995. All military
installations will be subject to review for closure at these times.
Part of the uncertainty in the Air Station's future is due to the
fact that the A-6 Intruder warplanes based there are scheduled to
be phased out and replaced by the AX fighter, which is now in the
early stages of development. It is not yet known where the AXs
will be based.
Remedial Investigation Project Plans: Community Relations Plan, for
Naval Air Station Whidbey Island Oak Harbor, Washington. Submitted by:
HAZWRAP Support contractor Office, Oak Ridge, TN 37831. Revision 1, August
1989. Page 18.
10Source: Washington State Atlas and Databook: 1990 Edition. Published
by The Information Press, 1990. Page 15.
NAS Whidbey Island, Page 4
-------
5. SCENARIOS FOR FUTURE LAND USE AT HAS Whidbev Island
a) Politics; When the Air Station at Whidbey Island is eventually
closed, the process of transferring the land and facilities to new
owners is likely to be very political. The land and facilities
are extremely valuable (over $117,000 per acre, according to the
Navy estimate cited on page 2) and are suitable for many purposes:
scenic parks; marinas; sites for valuable housing, condominiums or
residential developments; business or industrial parks; a municipal
airport; and farms, among many other uses.
The Navy will attempt to sell the land and facilities at fair
market value; the local governments of Oak Harbor and Island County
will attempt to acquire properties for free or below market value
and will try to control reuse scenarios through the local zoning
ordinances; there will be political and economic pressure to bring
in businesses and industries to replace the 1,750 civilian jobs
lost from the Air Station's closure; there will be special interest
groups lobbying for wildlife preserves, parks and other public
uses; and there will likely be funding shortages as state and local
groups examine the cost of maintaining the extensive facilities at
the Air Station.
The experience of current base closures (including those at Pease,
Norton, George, Mather and Chanute Air Force Bases) suggests that
the local community's reuse plan heavily influences the outcome of
a base transfer. Such plans typically are not formulated until
after a base is announced for closure. In the case of Whidbey
Island, neither the city of Oak Harbor nor Island County have
investigated reuse scenarios, although both were very active in
lobbying to keep the Air Station open during the period in which
it was being considered for closure.
The reuse process is likely to involve lengthy negotiations and
numerous compromises. The scenarios that are suggested in section
(e) below represent possible outcomes based on current conditions
and facilities, but the final result is virtually impossible to
predict beforehand.
b) Parceling; In addition to the political process described
above, the transfer of Air Station land and facilities to new
ownership will depend on certain legal issues. One of the key such
issues is the extent to which current law will allow clean parcels
of sites on the National Priority List to be separated from
contaminated parcels and subseguently transferred to new ownership.
For example, if the areas of groundwater contamination at NAS
Whidbey Island must be fully remediated before any uncontaminated
land can be transferred to new owners, then the Navy will be forced
to maintain ownership of the entire Air Station well into the next
century until remedial pump-and-treat operations are completed.
NAS Whidbey Island, Page 5
-------
A related issue is whether current law will allow the Navy to
transfer land overlying areas with groundwater contamination after
remedial equipment has been installed and remediation begun (but
before remediation has been completed). If not, then once again
the Navy will be forced to maintain ownership of such land well
into the next century, until remedial ground water pump-and-treat
operations are completed.
c) Additional complications due to aroundwater. For the purposes
of the baseline risk assessment, four categories of land use are
applicable: Residential, Industrial, Recreational, and
Agricultural. These categories apply to any surface area in or
around the affected site. For subsurface areas, and particularly
for groundwater, the applicability of these separate categories
becomes less clear due to the complications caused by the natural
movements of the underlying aquifer.
For example, in section [d] below it is suggested that the airfield
at NAS Whidbey Island will continue to be used for aviation, for
which the Industrial classification is applicable. The underlying
groundwater, however, may be more appropriately classified
Agricultural or Residential, since these are likely scenarios for
the surface areas adjacent to the airfield. The extent to which
such distinct classifications -can overly the same property is
unclear. In such cases, it may be necessary to assign both surface
and subsurface areas of the property to the same classification,
selecting the classification which corresponds to the greatest
exposure level in this case Residential. However, no
recommendation for resolving this issue is made in this memorandum.
The issue is raised here because it needs to be resolved before the
assignment of future use categories can be finalized.
d) PEA survey. A survey conducted by the Department of Defense's
Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) offers some insight into
possible future uses of NAS Whidbey Island land and facilities.
Entitled "25 Years of Civilian Reuse," the survey gives 100
examples of base closures and their subsequent uses.11 The results
of this survey were used to help formulate the scenarios suggested
below.
e) Likely scenarios. Based on the results of the OEA survey and
the characteristics of NAS Whidbey Island and the surrounding area,
the following future scenarios are suggested:
O Multiple uses are likely. NAS Whidbey Island contains
runways, housing, warehouses, a hospital, shopping center,
marina, numerous other buildings, and large amounts of vacant
See: 25 Years of Civilian Reuse: Summary of Completed Military Base
Economic Adjustment Projects, 1961-1986. Published by the Office of Economic
Adjustment (Department of Defense), Washington, D.C. April-May 1986.
NAS Whidbey Island, Page 6
-------
land. It is unlikely that all of these facilities and land
will be dedicated toward a single use in the future. In OEA's
survey, 81 percent of former bases listed more than one new
occupant after transfer to the civilian sector. At least 66
percent show distinct categories of occupant and use a
municipal airport and an industrial park, for example, or a
community college and a housing center.
There is a strong possibility that the runway facilities will
continue to be used for aviation after transfer. In OEA's
survey, of the 54 former Air Force Bases and Naval Air
Stations with runway facilities, 41 (or 76%) listed aviation
as one of their current uses.
Unless deed restrictions or other institutional controls are
employed, a Residential scenario cannot reasonably be ruled
out for the areas containing houses and base barracks. In
OEA's survey, about one quarter (26%) of the former bases
contained residential developments. In no case was a
residential development the only use of a former base.
A likely use for the remaining buildings on site is some form
of industrial park. (Seventy-four percent of the former bases
surveyed in OEA's study were at least partially devoted to
business or industrial parks). Adding weight to this scenario
is the fact that the economy of northern Whidbey Island is
heavily dependent on the base, which serves as a major area
employer. This means that, locally, there will be substantial
economic and political pressure to bring in substitute
employers should the base ever be closed.
For the peripheral areas of the base, as of yet undeveloped,
there will be competing interests. Possible scenarios include
the full spectrum of options, including parks2, preserves,
agricultural use, housing, or industrial use. The 1988 NAS
Whidbey Island Master Plan suggests that residential use may
be the most appropriate classification for much of these
areas:
"Because of the natural attractiveness of the
countryside, there has been a continual interest in
home building away from town, particularly along the
waterfront. Neither agriculture nor forestry is
The State Parks and Recreation Commission commented that the Air
Station would not be an area of major interest for acquisition into the state
park system were it to close in the future. The reasons given were high
maintenance costs of the accompanying facilities, and the fact that the
Commission considers other Whidbey Island lands south of the Air Station as
offering better park potential. (Contact: Andy Kramer, Site Planning and
Acquisition, tel: (206) 753-2018.)
NAS Uhidbey Island, Page 7
-------
strong enough in the area to effectively compete
with the residential growth pattern and much of the
island is becoming increasingly popular for
recreational second homes and retirement property."13
Figure 3 on page 11 shows that existing residential land use
is scattered more or less evenly throughout northern Whidbey
Island.
Some combination of residential and other uses will
undoubtedly result from the eventual closure of the Air
Station, but predicting specific scenarios in advance for
these peripheral areas is unlikely to yield reliable results
due to the highly politicized nature of the selection process.
The diagrams on pages 12 and 13 show, in rough outline, how the
above scenarios might be translated to a map of the base. It
should be emphasized that the diagrams are merely suggestive and
should not be interpreted as a final evaluation of future land use
classifications or boundaries.
Whidbey Island Master Plan, 1988. Prepared by the firms of Reid,
Middleton & Associates, Inc. and Dean Wolf - Environmental Planning/Design.
Prepared for Western Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, San
Bruno, CA 94066. Page A-33.
NAS Uhidbey Island, Page 8
-------
LOPEZ ISLAND
Washington/A
NAS SEAPLANE BASE
NOAA. February 1989. prepared
from SCS 1988.
Strait of Juan deFuca
WHIDBEY ISLAND
NORTH
20 kilometers
Puget Sound I
SfTE BOUNDARY
Figure 1. The Whidbey Island U.S. Naval Air Station (NAS) Seaplane Base study area on Whidbey
Island, Washington.
Page 9
-------
> >
Qjtt
UJCOD
CCLUCO
UJ
0)
<
CD
3*
£2
*S
SS
.EQENO
^
w
<
a
2uS
j«"
III
03B
<0<
Ul
O
a
^^^
:
*
IS
[
NN
H1HON
00
Z °°
o 2
JlQ^
..Pi
^
^II
,v'V/>
5X--, » I '
t * i -5 i
0 !"-.-»- KW'%» -?;». ?5 ,^]i
;- -.«X . *.»
-j ^X :*#
iki-«.' V«
Page 1
FIGURE 2'
-------
-------
M
7 ,
RESIDENTIAL
MULTIPLE POSSIBILITIES:
- Recreational
- Residential
- Agricultural
- Industrial
FIGURE 4: SEAPLANE BASE; Possible future uses of Seaplane Base (2,800 acres)
property and facilities at NAS Whidbey Island. The scenarios presented here are
merely suggestive and should not be construed as a final evaluation of future
land use classifications or boundaries.
Page 12
-------
^^
MULTIPLE POSSIBILITES;
- Recreational
- Residential
- Agricultural
- Industrial
f
FIGURE 5: AULT FIELD; Possible future uses of Ault Field (4,36 acres) property
and facilities at NAS Whidbey Island. The scenarios presented here are merely
suggestive and should not be construed as a final evaluation of future land use
classifications or boundaries.
Page 13
------- |